Skip to main content

Full text of "NATO agreements on status: travaux préparatoires"

See other formats


NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 
NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND 



INTERNATIONAL LAW STUDIES 

1961 



NATO AGREEMENTS ON STATUS: 
TRAVAUX PREPARATOIRES 



Edited and Annotated by 



Joseph M. Snee, SJ. 

Professor of Law 

Georgetown University 

Law Center 



$ 



NAVPERS 15031 
Volume LIV 



UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 1966 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $3 



APPROVED FOR PRINTING 22 September 1966 



(Date) 




€t-*l*6r*>i 



I ^ 




Assistant Chief for Education and Training 



FOREWORD 

Since the founding of the Naval War College in 1884, the study of 
international law has been an important part of the curriculum. 
From 1894 to 1900 some of the lectures on international law and the 
problem situations studied were compiled and printed with a limited 
distribution. Commencing in 1901, however, the first formal volume 
of the Naval War College's "Blue Book" series was published. This 
book is the fifty-fourth volume in the series as numbered for catalog- 
ing and reference purposes. 

This present volume is written by the Eeverend Joseph M. Snee, 
S. J., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Father 
Snee has collected, annotated and arranged, in a manner suitable for 
easy reference, a mass of material comprising the negotiating history 
of the three principal NATO agreements on the legal status of mili- 
tary forces. The three agreements prescribe the status of NATO 
personnel in countries where they are present for the purpose of 
official duties. Father Snee's compilation and commentary should 
prove to be a most valuable source of reference material in this par- 
ticular area of international law. 

While this material has been processed as required by SECNA- 
VINST 5600.16 of 2 November 1960, the opinions expressed in this 
volume and the decisions on selection of materials to be reproduced 
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the United 
States Navy or of the Naval War College. 

John T. Hayward 

Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy 
President, Naval War College 



in 



TABLES OF CONTENTS 



I. GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Foreword 

Introduction 

Part I. Final Text of the NATO Agreements on Status 

A. Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Regarding the Status of Their Forces 

B. Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organi- 
zation, National Representatives and International Staff 

C. Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters 
Set Up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty 

Part II. Summary Records 



D-R(50) 1 

D-R(50) 8 

D-R(50) 43 

D-R(51) 3 

MS-R(51) 1 _ 
MS-R(51) 2 _. 
MS-R(51) 3 _. 
MS-R(51) 4 _. 
MS(F)-R(51 
MS(F)-R(51 
MS(F)-R(51 
MS(F)-R(51 
MS(F)-R(51 
MS(F)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 
MS(J)-R(51 

D-R(51) 11 

MS-R(51) 5 _ 
MS-R(51) 6 _ 

D-R(51) 15 

D-R(51) 20 

MS-R(51) 7 _ 



(25 July 1950) 

(4 August 1950) __. 
(17 December 1950) 
(15 January (1951) 
(29 January 1951) . 
(29 January 1951) . 
(30 January 1951) . 
(31 January 1951) . 
(13 February 1951) 
(13 February 1951) 
(14 February 1951) 
(14 February 1951) 
(15 February 1951) 
(16 February 1951) 
(8 February 1951) . 
(8 February 1951) . 
(15 February 1951) 
(16 February 1951) 
(17 February 1951) 
(22 February 1951) 
(22 February 1951) 
(23 February 1951) 
(23 February 1951) 
(19 February 1951) 
(27 February 1951) 
(27 February 1951) 

(2 March 1951) 

(13 March 1951) — 
(16 April 1951) 



Page 

iii 

1 

13 

13 

34 

48 

51 
51 
52 
53 

54 

57 

60 

64 

68 

71 

74 

78 

81 

84 

87 

92 

95 

99 

103 

110 

113 

116 

117 

122 

124 

126 

129 

135 

136 



VI 



MS-R(51) 8 
MS-R(51) 9 
MS-R(51) 10 
MS-R(51) 11 
MS-R(51) 12 
MS-R(51) 13 
MS-R(51) 14 
MS-R(51) 15 
MS-R(51) 16 
MS-R(51) 17 
MS-R(51) 18 

D-R(51) 37 

D-R(51) 41 

MS-R(51) 19 
MS-R(51) 20 

D-R(51) 45 

MS-R(51) 21 
MS-R(51) 22 
MS-R(51) 23 
MS-R(51) 24 

D-R(51) 48 ___ 
MS-R(51) 25 

D-R(51) 58 ___ 

D-R(51) 62 ___. 

D-R(51) 63 — 
MS-R(51) 26 

D-R(51) 66 ___. 

D-R(51) 67 

D-R(51) 68 ___ 

D-R(51) 88 ___ 
MS-R(52) 1 _ 
MS-R(52) 2 . 
MS-R(52) 3 . 
MS-R(52) 4 . 

D-R(52) 9(F) 

D-R(52) 12 ___. 
MS-R(52) 5 
MS-R(52) 6 . 
MS-R(52) 7 . 

C-R(52) 14 ___. 
MS-R(52) 8 . 
MS-R(52) 9 . 

C-R(52) 18 ___. 

C-R(53) 27 ___. 

C-R(53) 30 ___. 

C-R(53) 47 ___. 

C-R(53) 51 ___. 



17 April 1951) 

17 April 1951) 

19 April 1951) 

20 April 1951) 

20 April 1951) 

23 April 1951) 

24 April 1951) 

25 April 1951) 

26 April 1951) 

30 April 1951) 

1 May 1951) 

9 May 1951) 

24 May 1951) 

29 May 1951) 

30 May 1951) 

6 June 1951) 

7 June 1951) 

8 June 1951) 

8 June 1951) 

14 June 1951) 

19 June 1951) 

27 June 1951) 

25 July 1951) 

21 August 1951) ___ 

22 August 1951) ___. 
24 August 1951) ___ 
14 September 1951) 

20 September 1951) 

3 October 1951) 

12 December 1951) _ 

16 January 1952) __. 
17-18 January 1952) 

22 January 1952) __ 

23 January 1952) __. 
30 January 1952) __ 
6 February 1952) __. 
24-26 March 1952) _ 

2-3 May 1952) 

4-5 June 1952) 

2 July 1952) 

3 July 1952) 

10 July 1952) 

20 August 1952) 

20 May 1953) 

17 June 1953) 

4 November 1953) _. 

9 December 1953) __. 



139 

143 

147 

152 

156 

162 

167 

173 

178 

185 

195 

203 

204 

211 

215 

219 

222 

225 

232 

237 

246 

249 

256 

258 

259 

261 

264 

266 

266 

267 

268 

269 

278 

288 

294 

295 

296 

304 

309 

315 

316 

318 

322 

324 

325 

326 

327 



Vll 



1 

2 ___ 

3 — 

4 ___ 
4(R) 
5 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

11(R) 
11 (2R) 

12 

13 

14 



C-R(54) 24 

C-R(54) 26 

Part III. Documents 
Cmd. 7868 

D-D (50) 19 

D-D (51) 23 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 
D-D(51) 57 
D-D (51) 58 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 

MS-D(51 
D-D (51) 127 

MS-D(51 
D-D (51) 138 
D-D (51) 146 

MS-D(51 



15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

28 

29 

29(R) _ 
29 (2R) 



31 



34 



D-D (51) 178 



2 June 1954) 328 

23 June 1954) 328 

21 December 1949) 331 

4 August 1950) 343 

23 January 1951) 345 

30 January 1951) 356 

6 February 1951) 362 

7 February 1951) 365 

9 February 1951) 366 

12 February 1951) 368 

12 February 1951) 370 

14 February 1951) 374 

14 February 1951) 375 

16 February 1951) 376 

16 February 1951) 379 

16 February 1951) 383 

19 February 1951) 384 

20 February 1951) 395 

24 February 1951) 408 

19 February 1951) 423 

20 February 1951) 426 

20 February 1951) 428 

28 February 1951) 430 

I March 1951) 445 

3 April 1951) 454 

4 April 1951) 456 

5 April 1951) 457 

5 April 1951) 460 

7 April 1951) 462 

9 April 1951) 464 

10 April 1951) 468 

II April 1951) 470 

16 April 1951) 473 

16 April 1951) 475 

20 April 1951) 477 

23 April 1951) 485 

27 April 1951) 489 

5 May 1951) 507 

11 June 1951) 516 

15 June 1951) 524 

7 May 1951) 533 

25 May 1951) 552 

1 June 1951) 563 

5 June 1951) 565 

19 July 1951) 568 

24 July 1951) 570 



Vlll 



D-D (51 

D-D (51 

D-D (51 

D-D (51 

D-D (51 

D-D (51 

D-D (51 

D-D (51 

D-D (52 

MS-D 

D-D (52 

D-D (52 

D-D (52 

D-D (52 

MS-D 

MS-D 

MS-D 

MS-D 

D-D (52 

MS-D 

MS-D 

C-M(52 

MS-D 

C-M(52 



ISM(52) 31 



C-M(53 
C-M(53 



206 

224 

229 

252 

266 

269 

300(R) _ 
301 (R) _ 

2 

52) 3 — 

24 

26 

27 

48(R) __ 

52) 5 

52) 6 ___ 

52) 6(R) 

52) 7 ___ 

77(F) __ 

52) 8 — 

52) 9 ___ 

30 __. 

52) 

56 



10 



62 
74 



(16 August 1951) __ 
(31 August 1951) __ 
(7 September 1951) 
(9 October 1951) __ 
(2 November 1951) 
(29 October 1951) _ 
(3 January 1952) __ 
(3 January 1952) __ 
(3 January 1952) __ 
(18 January 1952) _ 
(24 January 1952) _ 
(23 January 1952) _ 
(24 January 1952) _ 
(16 February 1952) 
(14 March 1952) ___ 
(27 March 1952) ___ 

(5 May 1952) 

(24 April 1952) 

(12 May 1952) 

(20 May 1952) 

(24 May 1952) 

(7 June 1952) 

(2 July 1952) 

(25 July 1952) 

(19 November 1952) 

(5 May 1953) 

(10 June 1953) 



Parallel 
Indices 



Tables 



573 
574 
574 
575 
577 
578 
582 
586 
592 
599 
604 
606 
609 
614 
615 
626 
632 
639 
640 
640 
642 
647 
651 
653 
655 
656 
659 
662 
673 



II. TABLE OF CONTENTS: STATUS OF FORCES 

AGREEMENT 



IX 



Part I. Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty 

Regarding the Status of Their Forces (19 June 1951) 

Part II. Summary Records: 

D-R(51) 3 

1 

2 

3 

4 — _ 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
G 
7 
8 
9 



MS-R(51) 
MS-R(51) 
MS-R(51) 
MS-R(51) 

MS(P 

MS(F 

MS(F 

MS(F 

MS(F 

MS(F 

MS (J 

MS (J 

MS(J 

MS(J 

MS(J 

MS (J 

MS (J 

MS(J 

MS(J 
D-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 5 __ 

MS-R(51) 6 

D-R(51) 15, par. 1-5 . 

MS-R(51) 7, par. 3 

MS-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 

D-R(51) 37 

D-R(51) 41 

MS-R(51) 

MS-R(51) 

D-R(51) 45 — 

MS-R(51) 23, par. 42-43 



)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
)-R(51) 
11 



10 
11 
12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

18 



19 

20 



15 January 1951) . 
29 January 1951) . 

29 January 1951) . 

30 January 1951) . 

31 January 1951) . 
13 February 1951) 

13 February 1951) 

14 February 1951) 

14 February 1951) 

15 February 1951) 

16 February 1951) 
8 February 1951) . 

8 February 1951) . 

15 February 1951) 

16 February 1951) 

17 February 1951) 
22 February 1951) 

22 February 1951) 

23 February 1951) 
23 February 1951) 
19 February 1951) 
27 February 1951) 
27 February 1951) 

2 March 1951) 

16 April 1951) 

19 April 1951) 

20 April 1951) 

20 April 1951) 

23 April 1951) ___. 

24 April 1951) 

25 April 1951) ___. 

26 April 1951) 

1 May 1951 > 

9 May 1951) 

24 May 1951) 

29 May 1951) 

30 May 1951) 

6 June 1951) 

8 June 1951) 



Page 
13 

53 

54 

57 

60 

64 

68 

71 

74 

78 

81 

84 

87 

92 

95 

99 

103 

110 

113 

116 

117 

122 

124 

126 

129 

137 

147 

152 

156 

162 

167 

173 

178 

195 

203 

204 

211 

215 

219 

232 



D-R(51) 48, par. 1-6, 8 

MS-R(52) 1, par. 26-37 __ 
MS-R(51) 3, par. 4, 10-20 

D-R(52) 9(F) 

D-R(52) 12 

MS-R(52)7, par. 27-28 

MS-R(52) 9, par. 10 

C-R(54) 24, par. 12, 15 

C-R(54) 26 

Part III. Documents : i 

Cmd. 7868 

D-D (51) 23 



MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 



MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 



MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 



MS-D(51 



MS-D(51 



MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
D-D (51) 57 



MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 
MS-D(51 



1 

2 

3 

4 

4(R) 
5 



6 

7 

8 

9 

10 ___ 
J_l ___ 
ll(R) 



1K2R) 



12 
13 

14 



15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
27 
28 



D-D (51) 127 __. 

MS-D(51) 31 

D-D (51) 138 __. 



19 June 1951) 246,249 

16 January 1952) 268 

22 January 1952) 61,63 

30 January 1952) 294 

6 February 1952) 295 

4-5 June 1952) 314 

10 July 1952) 322 

2 June 1954) 328 

23 June 1954) 328 



21 December 1949) 

23 January 1951) . 
30 January 1951) . 

6 February 1951) . 

7 February 1951) . 
9 February 1951) . 
12 February 1951) 
12 February 1951) 
14 February 1951) 
14 February 1951) 
16 February 1951) 
16 February 1951) 
16 February 1951) 

19 February 1951) 

20 February 1951) 

24 February 1951) 

19 February 1951) 

20 February 1951) 
20 February 1951) 
28 February 1951) 

3 April 1951) 

4 April 1951) 

5 April 1951) 

5 April 1951) 

7 April 1951) 

9 April 1951) 

10 April 1951) 

11 April 1951) 

16 April 1951) 

23 April 1951) 

27 April 1951) 

7 May 1951) 

25 May 1951) ___. 
1 June 1951) 



331 
345 
356 
362 
365 
366 
368 
370 
374 
375 
376 
379 
383 
384 
395 
408 
423 
426 
428 
430 
454 
456 
457 
460 
462 
464 
468 
470 
473 
485 
489 
533 
552 
563 



i Documents which are underlined contain the various texts of the Agreement 
in question. 



XI 



D-D(51) 146 (5 June 1951) 565 

D-D(51) 266 (2 November 1951) 577 

D-D(51) 269 (29 October 1951) 578 

D-D(52) 24, par. 2 (24 January 1952) 604 

D-D (52) 26 (23 January 1952) 606 

D-D(52) 48(R) (16 February 1952) 614 

MS-D(52) 7 (24 April 1952) 639 

D-D(52) 77(F) (12 May 1952) 640 

MS-D(52) 8 (20 May 1952) 640 

Parallel Tables 662 

Indices 673 



III. 



Part I. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS: AGREEMENT ON STATUS 

OF NATO 



Part II. 

D-R(50 

D-R(50 

D-R(50 

D-R(51 

D-R(51 

MS-R 

MS-R 

MS-R 

MS-R 

MS-R 

MS-R 

MS-R 

MS-R 

MS-R 

MS-R 

D-R(51 

D-R(51 

D-R(51 

MS-R 

D-R(51 

D-R(51 

D-R(51 

D-R(51 

Part III. 

D-D (50 

D-D (51 



Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organi- 
zation, National Representatives and International Staff (20 

September 1951) 

Summary Records : 



MS-D 



MS-D 



MS-D 



MS-D 



MS-D 



MS-D 
D-(51) 



D-D (51 
D-D (51 
D-D (51 
D-D (51 
D-D (52 

Parallel 

Indices 



43 

15, par. 12-13 __. 

20 

51) 7, par. 4-8 __. 

51) 8 

51) 9 

51) 16, par. 27-28 

51) 17 

51) 21 

51) 22 

51) 23, par. 1-14 _ 

51) 24 

51) 25 

58 

62 

63 

51) 26 

66 

67 

68 



Documents 
19 

58 

24 ___ 



51) 



51) 25 __ 



51) 29 



51) 29(R) 



51) 29 (2R) 



51) 

178 



34 



206 __ 
224 __ 
229 __ 
252 __ 
77(F) 
Tables _ 



25 July 1950) 

4 August 1950) 

17 December 1950) 

2 March 1951) 

13 March 1951) 

16 April 1951) 

17 April 1951) 

17 April 1951) 

26 April 1951) 

30 April 1951) 

7 June 1951) 

8 June 1951) 

8 June 1951) 

14 June 1951) 

27 June 1951) 

25 July 1951) 

21 August 1951) __. 

22 August 1951) __. 
24 August 1951) __. 

14 September 1951) 
20 September 1951) 

3 October 1951) 

12 December 1951) . 

4 August 1950) 

I March 1951) 

16 April 1951)) ___ 
20 April 1951) 

5 May 1951) 

II June 1951) 

15 June 1951) 

19 July 1951) 

24 July 1951) 

16 August 1951) __. 

31 August 1951) __. 
7 September 1951) . 

9 October 1951) 

12 May 1952) 



Page 



34 

51 
51 
52 
135 
135 
137 
139 
143 
183 
185 
222 
225 
232 
237 
249 
256 
258 
259 
261 
264 
266 
266 
267 

343 
445 
475 
477 
507 
516 
524 
568 
570 
573 
574 
574 
575 
640 
662 
673 



2 See note 1, supra. 



Xll 



Xlll 



IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS: PROTOCOL ON ALLIED 

HEADQUARTERS 



Part I. Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters 
Set Up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty (28 August 

1952) 

Part II. Summary Records : 

MS-R(51) 16, par. 22-28 

D-R(51) 48, par. 7 

MS-R(52) 2 

MS-R(52) 3, par. 21-81 

MS-R(52) 4 



MS-R(52) 5 
MS-R(52) 6 
MS-R(52) 7 

C-R(52) 14 . 
MS-R(52) 
MS-R(52) 

C-R(52) 18 

C-R(53) 

C-R(53) 

C-R(53) 

C-R(53) 
Part III. 



8 

9, par. 



1-9 



27 

30 

47 

51 

Documents 



MS-D(51) 23 _ 
D-D (51) 127, par. 
D-D(51) 300(R) 
D-D (51) 301 (R) 
D-D (52) 2 

MS-D(52) 3 __ 



D-D (52) 24, par. 3-4 
D-D (52) 27 

5 

6 



MS-D(52) 
MS-D(52) 



MS-D(52) 6(R) 



MS-D(52) 

C-M(52) 30 

MS-D(52) 

C-M(52) 56 _ 

ISM (52) 31 

C-M(53) 62 _ 

C-M(53) 74 _ 

Parallel Tables 

Indices 



9 



10 



26 April 1951) 

19 June 1951) 

17-18 January 1952) 

22 January 1952) __ 

23 January 1952) __ 
24-26 March 1952) _ 

2-3 May 1952) 

4-5 June 1952) 

2 July 1952) 

3 July 1952) 

10 July 1952) 

20 August 1952) ___ 

20 May 1953) 

17 June 1953) 

4 November 1953) _ 
9 December 1953) __. 



16 April 1951) ___. 

7 May 1951) 

3 January 1952) _. 
3 January 1952) _. 
3 January 1952) _. 

18 January 1952) 
24 January 1952) . 

23 January 1952) . 
14 March 1952) __. 
27 March 1952) __. 
5 May 1952) 

24 May 1952) 

7 June 1952) 

2 July 1952) 

25 July 1952) 

19 November 1952 ) 

5 May 1953) 

10 June 1953) 



Page 



48 

182 
249 
269 
280 
288 
296 
304 
309 
315 
316 
318 
322 
324 
325 
326 
327 

345 
534 
582 
586 
592 
599 
605 
609 
615 
626 
633 
642 
647 
651 
653 
655 
656 
659 
662 
673 



3 See note 1, supra. 



INTRODUCTION 

The Development of NATO 

The North Atlantic Treaty x was signed in Washington on 4 April 
1949 by the Foreign Ministers of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, 
Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the 
United Kingdom and the United States, and was subsequently rati- 
fied by all twelve nations. A Protocol 2 signed by the Council Deputies 
in London on 22 October 1951 agreed to the accession of Greece and 
Turkey, which acceded to the Treaty on 18 February 1952. A further 
Protocol 3 signed by the North Atlantic Council in Paris on 23 Octo- 
ber 1954 led to the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany on 
5 May 1955. 

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is not men- 
tioned by name in the North Atlantic Treaty. The genesis of the 
Organization as it exists today can, however, be traced to the estab- 
lishment, in Article 9 of the Treaty, of the North Atlantic Council 
and the authorization of other subsidiary bodies : 

The Parties hereby establish a council, on which each of them 
shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the imple- 
mentation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as 
to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set 
up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it 
shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall 
recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5. 
At the first session of the Council, in Washington on 17 September 
1949, it was decided that the Foreign Ministers of the NATO coun- 
tries would comprise the "normal" membership of the Council, and 
that any subsidiary bodies which were set up would be subordinate to 
the Council. The fourth session of the Council, held in London on 
15-18 May 1950, resulted in the creation of the "Council Deputies" 
(meaning Deputies representing their Foreign Ministers) who were 
to remain in permanent session in London, where the second session 
had already set up a permanent international working staff. The 



i 63 Stat, pt. 2, 2241, TIAS 1964, 34 UNTS 243. 

2 3 UST 43, TIAS 2390, 126 UNTS 350. 

3 6 UST 5707, TIAS 3428, 243 UNTS 308. 



ninth session of the Council, held in Lisbon on 20-25 February 1952, 
resulted in a radical reorganization of the various civilian institutions 
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Council Deputies, 
established in 1950, were abolished. The Council was to remain in 
permanent session with effective powers of decision. The Council was 
to be comprised of Permanent Representatives appointed to it by each 
of the NATO States. It was to take up its headquarters in the Paris 
area and was to be served by a single International Staff/Secretariat. 
The meetings of the Permanent Council were to be presided over by a 
permanent Vice-Chairman, who would also be the Secretary General 
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and responsible for the 
organization and work of the Staff/Secretariat. 

On the military side, by the time the Council held its fifth session, 
in New York on 15-18 September 1950, it was clear that the military 
security of the NATO countries required the creation of an integrated 
military force under a Supreme Commander supported by an inter- 
national staff and subject to the direction of the subsidiary body of 
the Council called the Standing Group. In accordance with a deci- 
sion reached at the sixth session of the Council, held in Brussels on 
18-19 December 1950, the United States nominated and the Council 
confirmed General Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander 
Europe (SACEUR), who chose a site near Paris for the Supreme 
Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). Also on the mili- 
tary side, several of the NATO countries, and particularly the United 
States, had armed forces serving on the territories of other NATO 
countries in connection with the operations of the North Atlantic 
Treaty. 

The Agreements on Status 

It was this development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
which created the necessity for some form of multilateral agreement 
to define the status of NATO personnel, both civilian and military, in 
the countries where they were present for the performance of their 
official duties. It was also necessary to define the juridical status of 
the Organization itself vis-a-vis the national law of the various coun- 
tries in which the Council or its subsidiary bodies were present and 
operating. The result was the three principal NATO agreements on 
status, whose "negotiating history" is contained in the present 
volume. These three agreements are : 

1. Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty 

Regarding the Status of Their Forces, 4 signed in Washington on 

19 June 1951 : 



4 4 UST 1792, TIAS 284(5, 199 UNTS 07. It is reproduced at page 18, infra. 



2. Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organi- 
zation, National Representatives and International Staff, 5 signed 
in Ottawa on 20 September 1951 ; and 

3. Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters 
Set up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, 6 signed in Paris 
on 28 August 1952. 

Of these three agreements, the first to be drafted and signed was 
the Status of Forces Agreement. Since the United States maintained 
the largest contingent of troops in other NATO countries, it was per- 
haps natural that the first draft of this Agreement was submitted by 
the United States Deputy, 7 who used as the basis for his draft the 
earlier Agreement Relative to the Status of Members of the Armed 
Forces of the Brussels Treaty Powers 8 which had already been agreed 
to by five of the twelve NATO countries — Belgium, France, Luxem- 
bourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom — although it had 
never been ratified. 

The Status of Forces Agreement deals with the problems arising 
from the stationing of the armed forces of one NATO country in the 
territory of another. 9 The Preamble makes it clear that the Agree- 
ment merely defines the status of these forces when they are sent to 
another NATO country ; it does not of itself create the right to send 
them in the absence of a special agreement to that effect. After a 
definition of terms (Article I), the Agreement states the obligation of 
such forces to respect the law of the receiving State (Article II). 
Special provisions are made for the entry, presence and departure of 
military and civilian personnel, with relaxation of the customary 
immigration procedures (Article III). Rules are laid down for the 
issuance of driving permits (Article IV), the wearing of uniform 
and the marking of service vehicles (Article V), and the carrying of 
arms (Article VI). Article VII, dealing with the question of crimi- 
nal jurisdiction, proved both difficult and controversial. 10 It recog- 
nizes the right of both the sending and the receiving State to exercise 
jurisdiction, exclusive when an act constitutes an offense against the 
law of only one of the two States, and concurrent in all other cases. 



5 5 UST 1087, TIAS 2992, 200 UNTS 3. It is reproduced at page 34, infra. 

6 5 UST 870, TIAS 2978, 200 UNTS 340. It is reproduced at page 43, infra. 

7 D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). 

8 Cmd. 7868, reproduced at page 331, infra. 

9 For a thorough discussion of the Status of Forces Agreement, see Lazareff, 
he Statut des Forces d'O.T.A.N., Paris, 1964. 

io A discussion of Article VII, based on both the negotiating history and a 
field study of its actual operation in reference to United States personnel in 
several of the NATO countries, will be found in Snee and Pye, Status of Forces 
Agreements : Criminal Jurisdiction, New York, 1957. 



Where jurisdiction is concurrent, the sending State is given primary 
right to exercise it in specified cases, with the residual right remain- 
ing in the receiving State. Article VIII, on claims for damage, also 
caused difficulty, particularly the question of the apportionment of 
costs. Other provisions of the Agreement deal with procurement 
(Article IX), taxation (Article X), customs duties and exemptions 
therefrom (Articles XI-XIII), foreign exchange controls (Article 
XIV). Article XV concerns the applicability of the Agreement to 
wartime conditions. Other provisions deal with the settlement of dis- 
putes (Article XVI), revision of the Agreement (Article XVII), 
ratification and accession (Article XVIII), denunciation (Article 
XIX), and application of the Agreement to colonial territories (Arti- 
cle XX). 

The Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- 
nization, National Representatives and International Staff concerns 
NATO civilian personnel and in the course of the negotiations is not 
infrequently referred to as the "Civilian Status Agreement." It was 
the first of the three status agreements to be proposed, 11 although it 
was not until 1 March 1951 that the first draft was submitted to the 
Council Deputies. 12 Since both the Council Deputies and the inter- 
national staff were then located in London, it was the United King- 
dom Deputy who initiated action toward such an agreement. 13 His 
draft drew largely upon the provisions in already existing agree- 
ments concerning the status of international organizations : the Uni- 
ted Nations, 14 its Specialized Agencies, 15 the Organization for Euro- 
pean Economic Cooperation (OEEC), 16 and the Council of Europe. 17 

The Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representatives 
and International Staff is divided into seven Parts. Part I, contain- 



11 See: D-R(50) 1, par. 7-8 (25 July 1950); D-R(50) 8, par. 13-17 (4 
August 1950) ; D-R(50) 43, par. 55-56 (17 December 1950). 

12 D-D (51) 58 (1 March 1950). 

13 See D-R(50) 8, par: 16 (4 August 1950). 

14 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. 
Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946. 
1 UNTS 15. 

15 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies. 
Approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 November 1947. 
33 UNTS 262. 

16 Convention for European Economic Cooperation, signed at Paris on 16 April 
1948. Treaty Series, No. 59 (1949), Cmd. 7796, 43 Am. J. Int. L., Supp. 94 
(1949). The status provisions are found in Supplementary Protocol No. 1 to the 
Convention for European Economic Cooperation on the Legal Capacity, Privi- 
leges and Immunities of the Organisation, ibid. 

17 Statute of the Council of Europe, signed at London on 5 May 1949. 87 
UNTS 103. 



ing general provisions, defines terms in the Agreement (Article 1), 
its non-applicability to military headquarters or other military sub- 
sidiary bodies (Article 2) and the obligation of the Organization to 
guard against any abuse of the immunities and privileges created by 
the Agreement (Article 3). Part II deals with the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization itself, granting it juridical personality (Article 
4), immunity from legal process (Article 5) and inviolability of its 
premises, property and documents (Articles 6-7). It is freed from 
currency control restrictions (Article 8) and censorship (Article 11). 
Provisions for exemption from taxation are made in Articles 9-10. 
Part III deals with the immunities and privileges of the Representa- 
tives of member States to the Organization and their staffs (Articles 
12-16), while Part IV defines the privileges and immunities of offi- 
cials of the International Staff/Secretariat and those of experts on 
missions for the Organization (Articles 17-23). Other provisions of 
the Agreement concern the settlement of disputes (Part V — Article 
24), supplementary agreements (Part VI — Article 25), and proce- 
dures for ratification and denunciation of the Agreement (Part VII 
—Articles 26-27). 

The third NATO agreement on status is the Protocol on the Status 
of International Military Headquarters Set up Pursuant to the North 
Atlantic Treaty. The possibility of such an agreement seems to have 
been first raised on 26 April 1951 at a meeting of the Working Group 
on Status in reference to the question whether the Status of Forces 
Agreement was applicable to integrated military headquarters such 
as SHAPE. At that time the French Representative stated that his 
Government was engaged in negotiations with SHAPE on this 
matter, and the Chairman suggested that it could be best dealt with 
in the form of a Protocol to the Status of Forces Agreement. 18 The 
question was raised again on 19 June 1951 at the time of the signing 
of the Status of Forces Agreement, and the French Deputy referred 
to the France-SHAPE negotiations on this subject. 19 The result of 
these negotiations was the first draft of the Protocol, which was laid 
before the Council Deputies in December 1951 by the French 
Deputy. 20 

The Protocol applies automatically to "Supreme Headquarters 
Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE), Headquarters of the Supreme 
Allied Commander Atlantic [SACLANT] and any equivalent inter- 
national military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic 
Treaty," (Article 1), as well as to international military headquarters 

is See MS-R(51) 16, par. 23-24 (26 April 1951). 

19 See D-R(51) 48, par. 7 (19 June 1951). 

20 See D-D (51) 300 (R) (3 January 1952). 



6 

immediately subordinate to a Supreme Headquarters (Articles 1-2). 
The Council may decide to extend it to other headquarters as well 
(Article 14). With regard to such headquarters and their personnel, 
civilian and military, the Protocol has two purposes. First, it adapts 
to the headquarters and personnel the provisions laid down in the 
Status of Forces Agreement in regard to sending States and their 
personnel (Articles 3-8). Secondly, it creates a special status for 
such headquarters which is analogous to that created for the Council 
and its subsidiary civilian bodies by the Agreement of 20 September 
1951. In the latter category fall provisions for the relief of head- 
quarters from taxation (Article 8), the disposal of assets or installa- 
tions no longer needed (Article 9), the grant to Supreme Head- 
quarters of juridical personality and other legal capacities (Articles 
10-11), freedom from currency restrictions (Article 12) and inviola- 
bility of archives and documents (Article 13). 

Four supplementary agreements with their negotiating history are 
included in this volume, because they were negotiated at the same 
time as the three principal agreements on status and influenced the 
development of the latter; they should therefore be considered with 
them. 21 These are : 

1. the bilateral agreement between France and SHAPE, supple- 
mentary to the Protocol, defining the conditions for the estab- 
lishment and operation of Allied Headquarters in France ; 22 

2. the administrative arrangement establishing a procedure for the 
filing, consideration and payment of claims under Article VIII 
of the Status of Forces Agreement ; 23 

3. a .bilateral agreement between the United States and NATO con- 
cerning the employment of United States nationals by the 
Organization, in implementation of Article 19 of the Agreement 
on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Na- 
tional Representatives and International Staff ; 24 

4. a similar bilateral agreement between the United States and 
NATO on the employment of United States nationals by Allied 
Headquarters, in implementation of Article 7 of the Protocol. 25 



21 See the statement by the French Deputy on the interrelation between the 
Protocol and the France-SHAPE bilateral agreement: D-D (52) 2, par. 5 (3 
January 1952). 

22 Original draft, D-D (51) 301 (R) (3 January 1952). 

23 Original draft, D-D (51) 269 (29 October 1951). 

24 D-D (51) 252 (9 October 1951). 

25 ISM (52) 31 (19 November 1952). The Agreement itself, however, was 
signed in February 1953. 



The Negotiating History 

In the case of each of the three principal NATO agreements on 
status, an original draft was submitted to the Council Deputies by 
the Deputy for the Government most immediately concerned — the 
United States (Status of Forces), the United Kingdom (Status of 
NATO), and France (the Protocol). This original draft, together 
with subsequent redrafts, served as the basis for discussions. 

The negotiations themselves were conducted on two levels: (a) by 
a Working Group, assisted by a Financial Subcommittee and a Juri- 
dical Subcommittee; and (b) by the Council Deputies, who were 
succeeded, after the reorganization of NATO in 1952, by the Council 
itself. The Working Group consisted of one Representative for each 
of the twelve NATO countries ; the two Subcommittees had the same 
membership. The discussions at the meetings are reported in Sum- 
mary Records, while related papers (including the texts of the agree- 
ments at various stages) are referred to as Documents. The two 
classes of papers are arranged in the following series : 

Records 

M S-R ( 51 ) Meetings of the Working Group ( 1951 ) 

MS-R(52) Meetings of the Working Group (1952) 

MS(F)-R(51) Meetings of Financial Subcommittee (1951) 

MS(J)-R(51) Meetings of Juridical Subcommittee (1951) 

D-R(51) Meetings of the Council Deputies (1951) 

D-R(52) Meetings of the Council Deputies (1952) 

C-R(52) Meetings of the Council (1952) 

C-R(53) Meetings of the Council (1953) 

C-R ( 54 ) Meetings of the Council ( 1954 ) 

Documents 

MS-D(51) Working Group Documents (1951) 

MS-D ( 52 ) Working Group Documents ( 1952 ) 

D-D ( 51 ) Deputies Documents ( 1951 ) 

D-D (52) Deputies Documents (1952) 

C-M ( 52 ) Council Memorandum ( 1952 ) 

C-M ( 53 ) Council Memorandum ( 1953 ) 

I SM ( 52 ) International Staff Memorandum ( 1952 ) 

In each of these series, a Record or Document was assigned a num- 
ber as the meeting was held or the document issued. Thus, MS-R(51) 
1 contained the Summary Record of the first 1951 meeting of the 
Working Group, while MS-D (51) 1 was the first document issued by 
the Secretariat in that series. Occasionally, a revised or final version 
of a particular document was issued; this is indicated by (R) or (F) 
after the reference, e.g., MS-D (51) 11 (R) is the revised version of 
MS-D (51) 11, while MS-D (51) 11 (2R) is the second revised version 
of the same document. For documents containing a draft text of an 



8 

agreement, further reference is to the Article of the draft agreement 
and to particular paragraphs of that Article, e.g., MS-D(51) 11 (2R), 
Article VII, par. 2(a). In the case of other documents, as well as the 
Summary Records, further reference is to paragraphs, e.g., MS-R 
(51) 16, par. 22. 

Since the same Record or the same Document may refer to more 
than one of the agreements involved, it was not possible to separate 
them into three distinct groupings, each referring to one of the 
agreements. Instead, they are arranged, with a few exceptions, as 
they occurred chronologically. Since not all the Records or Docu- 
ments in a particular series refer to these agreements on status (and 
sometimes not all of any particular Record or Document), gaps will 
be noticed in the various series. In some cases, particularly in Depu- 
ties Records or Deputies Documents, only that part of the Record 
or Document which refers to the status agreements has been 
declassified. 

The mass of materials comprising the negotiating history of the 
three NATO agreements on status has been arranged in this volume 
with a view to maximum usefulness and ease of reference. Part I con- 
tains the final text of the three agreements in the form in which they 
were signed, although the actual signatures have not been repro- 
duced here. Part II contains the Summary Records, arranged in 
chronological order with a few minor variations from that order. 26 
Part III contains the Documents also arranged, with a few excep- 
tions, 27 in chronological order. Within Parts II and III, no separate 
division has been made between the Deputies and the Working Group 
series. 

Tables and Indices 

There is a General Table of Contents, followed by a special table 
of contents for each of the three agreements. These four tables have 
the same arrangement: Part I (final text), Part II (Summary Rec- 
ords), and Part III (Documents). The tables of contents have been 
set up with special indentations to enable the reader to distinguish 
the various series of Records and Documents at a glance. In each 
of the special tables of contents, those documents which contain a 
draft version of the particular agreement are indicated by an under- 



26 There is a slight overlap in the chronology of the meetings of the two Sub- 
committees, in the MS(F)-R(51) and the MS(J)-R(51) series, and D-R(51) 
11 was, for obvious reasons, also placed slightly out of chronological order. 

27 The order of enumeration in a series of documents has been followed even 
though this may differ slightly from the chronological order, the most notable 
example being the case where a document appeared in a revised version, i.e., 
MS-D(51) 11, MS-D(51) 11(R), and MS-D(51) 11(2R). 



9 

line, and the text of these drafts is analyzed in the parallel tables 
at the end of the volume. 

There is a parallel table of texts at the end of the volume for each 
of the three agreements on status which is an essential tool for a 
study of the negotiating history of these agreements. In each of 
these tables the first column refers to the final text of the particular 
agreement, Article by Article and paragraph by paragraph. The 
parallel columns refer to the corresponding Articles and paragraphs 
found in earlier drafts of the same agreement, i.e., in those docu- 
ments which are underlined in the tables of contents. Thus, if one 
wishes to trace the development, e.g., of the provisions on double 
jeopardy in paragraph 8 of Article VII of the Status of Forces 
Agreement, the parallel table will list the Article and paragraph in 
which that provision appeared in the earlier drafts. Reference to 
the draft itself in the Documents series will give the text of the earl- 
ier version, and recourse to the discussions in the Summary Records 
(and sometimes in other documents) will indicate the reasons which 
were advanced for changing the text. To facilitate such cross-refer- 
ence, footnotes for each Summary Record indicate the particular 
document there under discussion, and footnotes for each document 
indicate the part of the Summary Record where that document is 
discussed. 

There is also an "Article Index" for each of the three agreements, 
which provides another tool for research into the negotiations which 
led to the final form of a particular provision in the agreements. 
This "Article Index" breaks down the agreement according to the 
Articles and paragraphs in the final text and then lists under that 
heading the exact place in each Summary Record and document 
(other than earlier draft referred to in the parallel table) where that 
provision is discussed or mentioned. Thus, under the heading "Arti- 
cle VII, paragraph 8" in the Article Index for the Status of Forces 
Agreement are listed all places in the Summary Records and the 
Documents where the question of double jeopardy is discussed. The 
Article Index and the Parallel Tables thus offer two alternate routes 
for tracing the negotiating history of any particular provision in 
the agreements. 

Norms for Editing 

In considering the norms to be followed in editing the NATO 
papers on status for publication, it should be remembered that the 
editor had to deal with a vast mass of mimeographed materials con- 
cerning in one way or another the negotiations leading to the three 
final agreements. These were prepared day by day for the use of 



10 

the Working Group or the Deputies over a period of more than two 
years and without thought to the niceties of form involved in ulti- 
mate publication. Some of the matters covered by these papers were 
of transitory interest only — such as reports on how many States had 
so far ratified, what they were doing toward provisional implemen- 
tation in advance of ratification, procedural points such as the time 
of the next meeting, etc. They were prepared by more than one 
typist or stenographer, with the result that sometimes even the same 
Record or Document shows inconsistencies in spelling and punctua- 
tion, depending upon the British or American background and train- 
ing of the particular stenographer or typist. All of these considera- 
tions, as well as others, made it necessary to formulate certain norms 
to be followed in editing these papers for publication. Candor sug- 
gests that these norms be outlined here. 

1. Papers referring to purely transitory arrangements or problems 
(such as the progress of ratification, provisional implementation) 
have generally been omitted, as well as parts of papers dealing with 
such matters. 

2. Materials relating to supplementary agreements and, in general, 
those which follow the signing of each of the agreements have been 
omitted. A few exceptions have been made, particularly in reference 
to the four supplementary agreements mentioned earlier in this 
Introduction. 

3. I have omitted from the manuscript the following matters con- 
tained in the mimeographed papers (usually at the head) : (a) 
whether the original text was in French or English — all translations 
being official, with one exception; 28 (b) the security classification of 
each paper — all of those contained in this volume having been down- 
graded to unclassified; (c) the date on which Summary Records were 
issued (but the date is indicated on which the meetings were held) ; 
(d) the list of those present at meetings (but the nationality of the 
Chairman is indicated, since he sometimes spoke in his capacity of 
national representative) ; and (e) the place and time of meetings. 
Also omitted, in most cases, have been purely covering notes by the 
Secretary when distributing a document. 

4. Unnecessary duplication of documents has been eliminated. 
Thus, where a particular text appeared in identical form in several 
documents, it has been retained in only one and the omission of the 
others has been noted. 



28 No official English translation was made for MS(J)-R(51) 4, for which 
the mimeographed Record gives only the French text. The English version in 
this volume was translated by the editor from the French original, and all 
textual quotations therein are from the English documents. 



11 

5. The wording has been changed where a reference was to a par- 
ticular line of the mimeographed text, since such a reference would 
be meaningless in a printed volume. 

6. Where official corrections or additions to a Record or a Docu- 
ment were subsequently made, the correction or addition has gen- 
erally been inserted in the proper place without further note, 
although in a few cases the fact has been noted. 

7. A standard format has been adopted for the main heading of 
each Record and Document, in place of the somewhat haphazard 
variations found in the original mimeographs. Within the Records 
and Documents, subheadings have often been simplified or standard- 
ized, particularly where it was unclear in the original which agree- 
ment or which text was being referred to. Some subheadings have 
been deleted as unnecessary; others have been amplified to facilitate 
reference, i.e., "paragraph 6" becomes "Article VII, par. 6." 

8. While most of the Records and Documents have consecutive 
numbers for the paragraphs, there were a few with unnumbered 
paragraphs and a few others with non-consecutive enumeration. In 
such cases, I have supplied consecutive numbering for all paragraphs 
and noted this fact in a footnote, the purpose being to facilitate 
reference. 

9. As noted above, there are many discrepancies in spelling even 
within the same Record or Document, depending upon the predilec- 
tions of the tj^pist. In dealing with this problem I have followed 
this procedure : 

(a) In the case of earlier texts of the three final documents, 
quotations therefrom or amendments thereto, the spelling 
has (wherever it differed) been made to conform to that of 
the final version — in general, the British practice. The same 
procedure was followed in the enumeration of Articles and 
paragraphs (Roman versus Arabic numerals) and in the 
indentation of subparagraphs. 

(b) Elsewhere, since the greater part of other materials fol- 
lowed the American spelling practice, any inconsistencies 
have been made to conform to that practice. 

10. Every effort has been made to keep footnotes to a minimum. 
In most cases, footnotes have been added by the editor; in others, 
they contain information which, for simplicity of format, has been 
dropped down from the text, i.e., "Previous references." Where a 
footnote is found in the original, this fact has been indicated, 
although the footnote itself, if necessary, has been renumbered. In 
the text of final documents, footnote references are in square brackets. 

The necessity for some editing of the mimeographed materials is, 



12 

I think, quite clear. The norms mentioned above were adopted in an 
effort to produce a readable and useful text while at the same time 
being faithful to the original. In steering this editorial course be- 
tween Scylla and Charybdis, I trust that I have been moderately 
successful. 

Acknowledgments 

It is almost ten years since the work of gathering and editing 
these materials first began. During that time I have received much 
help and encouragement from many people, as well as an occasional 
prodding when my interest or energies began to lag. A special ex- 
pression of thanks is due to several individuals. I wish to thank 
Professor Richard R. Baxter, Harvard Law School, for first sug- 
gesting this work. Both Harvard Law School and the Georgetown 
University Law Center gave grants-in-aid to defray the expenses of 
gathering and collating the materials. Monroe Leigh, Jere Dykema 
and Ben Forman — all in the Office of General Counsel, Department 
of Defense — were indefatigable in procuring the declassification of 
most of the documents in question and in helping me to obtain copies 
of these materials, a task in which great effort was also expended by 
the personnel of USRO in Paris and the members of the Interna- 
tional Staff. A word of thanks is due also to the staff at the Naval 
War College for their continued interest — and patience — while the 
present volume slowly edged its way to completion. Finally, I should 
like to thank the Fathers at El Retiro in Los Altos, California, who 
provided a quiet and pleasant haven where I could do without inter- 
ruption the final work on this volume. 



Joseph M. Snee, S.J. 



Georgetown University Law Center 
1 December 1966 



PART I. FINAL TEXT OF THE NATO AGREEMENTS 

ON STATUS 

A. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH 
ATLANTIC TREATY REGARDING THE STATUS OF THEIR 
FORCES 1 

The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington 
on 4th April, 1949, 2 

Considering that the forces of one Party may be sent, by arrange- 
ment, to serve in the territory of another Party ; 

Bearing in mind that the decision to send them and the conditions 
under which they will be sent, in so far as such conditions are not 
laid down by the present Agreement, will continue to be the subject 
of separate arrangements between the Parties concerned; 

Desiring, however, to define the status of such forces while in the 
territory of another Party ; 

Have agreed as follows : 

Article I 

1. In this Agreement the expression — 

(a) "force" means the personnel belonging to the land, sea or 
air armed services of one Contracting Party when in the 
territory of another Contracting Party in the North Atlantic 
Treaty area in connexion with their official duties, provided 
that the two Contracting Parties concerned may agree that 
certain individuals, units or formations shall not be regarded 
as constituting or included in a "force" for the purposes of 
the present Agreement ; 

(b) "civilian component" means the civilian personnel accom- 
panying a force of a Contracting Party who are in the 
employ of an armed service of that Contracting Party, and 
who are not stateless persons, nor nationals of any State 
which is not a Party to the North Atlantic Treaty, nor 



i TIAS 2846 ; 4 UST 1792 ; 199 TJNTS 67. The above text was distributed, for 
purposes of information, as D-D (51) 178(F) (omitted here) on 10 July 1951. 
2 63 Stat., pt. 2, 2241; TIAS 1964; 34 UNTS 243. 

13 



14 

nationals of, nor ordinarily resident in, the State in which 
the force is located ; 

(c) "dependent" means the spouse of a member of a force or of 
a civilian component, or a child of such member depending 
on him or her for support ; 

(d) "sending State" means the Contracting Party to which the 
force belongs ; 

(e) "receiving State" means the Contracting Party in the ter- 
ritory of which the force or civilian component is located, 
whether it be stationed there or passing in transit; 

(f) "military authorities of the sending State" means those 
authorities of a sending State who are empowered by its 
law to enforce the military law of that State with respect 
to members of its forces or civilian components; 

(g) "North Atlantic Council" means the Council established by 
Article 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty or any of its subsid- 
iary bodies authorised to act on its behalf. 

2. This Agreement shall apply to the authorities of political sub- 
divisions of the Contracting Parties, within their territories to which 
the Agreement applies or extends in accordance with Article XX, as 
it applies to the central authorities of those Contracting Parties, pro- 
vided, however, that property owned by political sub-divisions shall 
not be considered to be property owned by a Contracting Party 
within the meaning of Article VIII. 

Article II 

It is the duty of a force and its civilian component and the mem- 
bers thereof as well as their dependents to respect the law of the 
receiving State, and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with 
the spirit of the present Agreement, and, in particular, from any 
political activity in the receiving State. It is also the duty of the 
sending State to take necessary measures to that end. 

Article III 

1. On the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of this Article and 
subject to compliance with the formalities established by the receiv- 
ing State relating to entry and departure of a force or the members 
thereof, such members shall be exempt from passport and visa reg- 
ulations and immigration inspection on entering or leaving the ter- 
ritory of a receiving State. They shall also be exempt from the 
regulations of the receiving State on the registration and control of 



15 

aliens, but shall not be considered as acquiring any right to perma- 
nent residence or domicile in the territories of the receiving State. 

2. The following documents only will be required in respect of 
members of a force. They must be presented on demand: 

(a) personal identity card issued by the sending State showing 
names, date of birth, rank and number (if any), service, 
and photograph ; 

(b) individual or collective movement order, in the language of 
the sending State and in the English and French languages, 
issued by an appropriate agency of the sending State or of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and certifying to 
the status of the individual or group as a member or mem- 
bers of a force and to the movement ordered. The receiving 
State may require a movement order to be countersigned by 
its appropriate representative. 

3. Members of a civilian component and dependents shall be so 
described in their passports. 

4. If a member of a force or of a civilian component leaves the 
employ of the sending State and is not repatriated, the authorities of 
the sending State shall immediately inform the authorities of the 
receiving State, giving such particulars as may be required. The 
authorities of the sending State shall similarly inform the authorities 
of the receiving State of any member who has absented himself for 
more than twenty-one days. 

5. If the receiving State has requested the removal from its terri- 
tory of a member of a force or civilian component or has made an 
expulsion order against an ex-member of a force or of a civilian 
component or against a dependent of a member or ex-member, the 
authorities of the sending State shall be responsible for receiving 
the person concerned within their own territory or otherwise dispos- 
ing of him outside the receiving State. This paragraph shall apply 
only to persons who are not nationals of the receiving State and have 
entered the receiving State as members of a force or civilian compo- 
nent or for the purpose of becoming such members, and to the de- 
pendents of such persons. 

Article IV 

The receiving State shall either 

(a) accept as valid, without a driving test or fee, the driving 
permit or licence or military driving permit issued by the 
sending State or a sub-division thereof to a member of a 
force or of a civilian component ; or 



16 

(b) issue its own driving permit or licence to any member of a 
force or civilian component who holds a driving permit or 
licence or military driving permit issued by the sending 
State or a sub- division thereof, provided that no driving 
test shall be required. 

Article V 

1. Members of a force shall normally wear uniform. Subject to 
any arrangement to the contrary between the authorities of the send- 
ing and receiving States, the wearing of civilian dress shall be on 
the same conditions as for members of the forces of the receiving 
State. Kegularly constituted units or formations shall be in uniform 
when crossing a frontier. 

2. Service vehicles of a force or civilian component shall carry, in 
addition to their registration number, a distinctive nationality mark. 

Article VI 

Members of a force may possess and carry arms, on condition that 
they are authorised to do so by their orders. The authorities of the 
sending State shall give sympathetic consideration to requests from 
the receiving State concerning this matter. 

Article VII 

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, 

(a) the military authorities of the sending State shall have the 
right to exercise within the receiving State all criminal and 
disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the law of 
the sending State over all persons subject to the military 
law of that State ; 

(b) the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction 
over the members of a force or civilian component and their 
dependents with respect to offences committed within the 
territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law 
of that State. 

2. (a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have the 

right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over persons subject 
to the military law of that State with respect to offences, 
including offences relating to its security, punishable by the 
law of the sending State, but not by the law of the receiving 
State, 
(b) The authorities of the receiving State shall have the right 



17 

to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over members of a force or 
civilian component and their dependents with respect to 
offences, including offences relating to the security of that 
State, punishable by its law but not by the law of the send- 
ing State, 
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and of paragraph 3 of 
this Article a security offence against a State shall include 
(i) treason against the State; 

(ii) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to 
official secrets of that State or secrets relating to the 
national defence of that State. 

3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the 
following rules shall apply : 

(a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have the 
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a 
force or of a civilian component in relation to 

(i) offences solely against the property or security of that 
State, or offences solely against the person or property of 
another member of the force or civilian component of 
that State or of a dependent ; 
(ii) offences arising out of any act or omission done in the 
performance of official duty. 

(b) In the case of any other offence the authorities of the receiv- 
ing State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdic- 
tion. 

(c) If the State having the primary right decides not to exer- 
cise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other 
State as soon as practicable. The authorities of the State 
having the primary right shall give sympathetic considera- 
tion to a request from the authorities of the other State for 
a waiver of its right in cases where that other State con- 
siders such waiver to be of particular importance. 

4. The foregoing provisions of this Article shall not imply any 
right for the military authorities of the sending State to exercise 
jurisdiction over persons who are nationals of or ordinarily resident 
in the receiving State, unless they are members of the force of the 
sending State. 

5. (a) The authorities of the receiving and sending States shall 

assist each other in the arrest of members of a force or 
civilian component or their dependents in the territory of 
the receiving State and in handing them over to the author- 
ity which is to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the 
above provisions. 



18 

(b) The authorities of the receiving State shall notify promptly 
the military authorities of the sending State of the arrest 
of any member of a force or civilian component or a de- 
pendent. 

(c) The custody of an accused member of a force or civilian 
component over whom the receiving State is to exercise 
jurisdiction shall, if he is in the hands of the sending State, 
remain with that State until he is charged by the receiving 
State. 

6. (a) The authorities of the receiving and sending States shall 

assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investi- 
gations into offences, and in the collection and production of 
evidence, including the seizure and, in proper cases, the 
the handing over of objects connected with an offence. The 
handing over of such objects may, however, be made sub- 
ject to their return within the time specified by the author- 
ity delivering them, 
(b) The authorities of the Contracting Parties shall notify one 
another of the disposition of all cases in which there are 
concurrent rights to exercise jurisdiction. 

7. (a) A death sentence shall not be carried out in the receiving 

State by the authorities of the sending State if the legisla- 
tion of the receiving State does not provide for such pun- 
ishment in a similar case, 
(b) The authorities of the receiving State shall give sympathetic 
consideration to a request from the authorities of the send- 
ing State for assistance in carrying out a sentence of impris- 
onment pronounced by the authorities of the sending State 
under the provisions of this Article within the territory of 
the receiving State. 

8. Where an accused has been tried in accordance with the provi- 
sions of this Article by the authorities of one Contracting Party and 
has been acquitted, or has been convicted and is serving, or has served, 
his sentence or has been pardoned, he may not be tried again for the 
same offence within the same territory by the authorities of another 
Contracting Party. However, nothing in this paragraph shall pre- 
vent the military authorities of the sending State from trying a mem- 
ber of its force for any violation of rules of discipline arising from 
an act or omission which constituted an offence for which he was 
tried by the authorities of another Contracting Party. 

9. Whenever a member of a force or civilian component or a 
dependent is prosecuted under the jurisdiction of a receiving State he 
shall be entitled — 



19 

(a) to a prompt and speedy trial ; 

(b) to be informed, in advance of trial, of the specific charge or 
charges made against him ; 

(c) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; 

(d) to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
favour, if they are within the jurisdiction of the receiving 
State ; 

(e) to have legal representation of his own choice for his defence 
or to have free or assisted legal representation under the 
conditions prevailing for the time being in the receiving 
State; 

(f) if he considers it necessary, to have the services of a com- 
petent interpreter ; and 

(g) to communicate with a representative of the Government of 
the sending State and, when the rules of the court permit, 
to have such a representative present at his trial. 

10. (a) Regularly constituted military units or formations of a force 
shall have the right to police any camps, establishments or 
other premises which they occupy as the result of an agree- 
ment with the receiving State. The military police of the 
force may take all appropriate measures to ensure the main- 
tenance of order and security on such premises, 
(b) Outside these premises, such military police shall be em- 
ployed only subject to arrangements with the authorities of 
the receiving State and in liaison with those authorities, and 
in so far as such employment is necessary to maintain disci- 
pline and order among the members of the force. 
11. Each Contracting Party shall seek such legislation as it deems 
necessary to ensure the adequate security and protection within its 
territory of installations, equipment, property, records and official 
information, of other Contracting Parties, and the punishment of 
persons who may contravene laws enacted for that purpose. 

Article VIII 

1. Each Contracting Party waives all its claims against any other 
Contracting Party for damage to any property owned by it and used 
by its land, sea or air armed services, if such damage — 

(i) was caused by a member or an employee of the armed 
services of the other Contracting Party in the execution 
of his duties in connexion with the operation of the North 
Atlantic Treaty ; or 
(ii) arose from the use of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft owned 
by the other Contracting Party and used by its armed 



20 

services, provided either that the vehicle, vessel or air- 
craft causing the damage was being used in connexion 
with the operation of the North Atlantic Treaty, or that 
the damage was caused to property being so used. 
Claims for maritime salvage by one Contracting Party against any 
other Contracting Party shall be waived, provided that the vessel or 
cargo salved was owned by a Contracting Party and being used by 
its armed services in connexion with the operation of the North 
Atlantic Treaty. 

2. (a) In the case of damage caused or arising as stated in para- 
graph 1 to other property owned by a Contracting Party 
and located in its territory, the issue of the liability of any 
other Contracting Party shall be determined and the amount 
of liability shall be assessed, unless the Contracting Parties 
concerned agree otherwise, by a sole arbitrator selected in 
accordance with sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph. The 
arbitrator shall also decide any counter-claims arising out 
of the same incident. 

(b) The arbitrator referred to in sub-paragraph (a) above shall 
be selected by agreement between the Contracting Parties 
concerned from amongst the nationals of the receiving State 
who hold or have held high judicial office. If the Contract- 
ing Parties concerned are unable, within two months, to 
agree upon the arbitrator, either may request the Chairman 
of the North Atlantic Council Deputies to select a person 
with the aforesaid qualifications. 

(c) Any decision taken by the arbitrator shall be binding and 
conclusive upon the Contracting Parties. 

(d) The amount of any compensation awarded by the arbitrator 
shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraph 5(e) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this Article. 

(e) The compensation of the arbitrator shall be fixed by agree- 
ment between the Contracting Parties concerned and shall, 
together with the necessary expenses incidental to the per- 
formance of his duties, be defrayed in equal proportions by 
them. 

(f) Nevertheless, each Contracting Party waives its claim in 

any such case where the damage is less than : — 

Belgium : B.fr. 70,000. Luxembourg : L.fr. 70,000. 

Canada : $1,460. Netherlands : PL 5,320. 

Denmark : Kr. 9,670. Norway : Kr. 10,000. 

France : F.f r. 490,000. Portugal : Es. 40,250. 

Iceland : Kr. 22,800. United Kingdom : £ 500. 

Italy : Li. 850,000. United States : $1,400. 



21 

Any other Contracting Party whose property has been damaged in 
the same incident shall also waive its claim up to the above amount. 
In the case of considerable variation in the rates of exchange between 
these currencies the Contracting Parties shall agree on the appro- 
priate adjustments of these amounts. 3 

3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article the 
expression "owned by a Contracting Party" in the case of a vessel 
includes a vessel on bare boat charter to that Contracting Party or 
requisitioned by it on bare boat terms or seized by it in prize (except 
to the extent that the risk of loss or liability is borne by some person 
other than such Contracting Party). 

4. Each Contracting Party waives all its claims against any other 
Contracting Party for injury or death suffered by any member of its 
armed services while such member was engaged in the performance 
of his official duties. 

5. Claims (other than contractual claims and those to which para- 
graphs 6 or 7 of this Article apply) arising out of acts or omissions 
of members of a force or civilian component done in the performance 
of official duty, or out of any other act, omission or occurrence for 
which a force or civilian component is legally responsible, and caus- 
ing damage in the territory of the receiving State to third parties, 
other than any of the Contracting Parties, shall be dealt with by the 
receiving State in accordance with the following provisions : — 

(a) Claims shall be filed, considered and settled or adjudicated 
in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving 
State with respect to claims arising from the activities of 
its own armed forces. 

(b) The receiving State may settle any such claims, and payment 
of the amount agreed upon or determined by adjudication 
shall be made by the receiving State in its own currency. 

(c) Such payment, whether made pursuant to a settlement or to 
adjudication of the case by a competent tribunal of the 
receiving State, or the final adjudication by such a tribunal 
denying payment, shall be binding and conclusive upon the 
Contracting Parties. 

(d) Every claim paid by the receiving State shall be communi- 
cated to the sending States concerned together with full 



3 The North Atlantic Council, in approving the accession of Greece and 
Turkey to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, recommended that the two 
countries should, when depositing their instruments of accession, waive claims 
under Article VIII, par. 2(f), as follows: Drs. 21,000,000 (Greece) ; T.L. 3,9000 
(Turkey). Draft Resolution, C-M(52) 63(F), approved by the Council on 20 
August 1952 (C-R(52) 18, par. 3). 



22 



particulars and a proposed distribution in conformity with 
sub-paragraphs (e)(i), (ii) and (iii) below. In default of 
a reply within two months, the proposed distribution shall 
be regarded as accepted. 

(e) The cost incurred in satisfying claims pursuant to the pre- 
ceding sub-paragraphs and paragraph 2 of this Article 
shall be distributed between the Contracting Parties, as 
follows : — 

(i) Where one sending State alone is responsible, the amount 
awarded or adjudged shall be distributed in the propor- 
tion of 25 per cent, chargeable to the receiving State and 
75 per cent, chargeable to the sending State, 
(ii) Where more than one State is responsible for the damage, 
the amount awarded or adjudged shall be distributed 
equally among them : however, if* the receiving State is 
not one of the States responsible, its contribution shall be 
half that of each of the sending States. 

(iii) Where the damage was caused by the armed services of 
the Contracting Parties and it is not possible to attribute 
it specifically to one or more of those armed services, the 
amount awarded or adjudged shall be distributed equally 
among the Contracting Parties concerned: however, if 
the receiving State is not one of the States by whose 
armed services the damage was caused, its contribution 
shall be half that of each of the sending States concerned. 

(iv) Every half-year, a statement of the sums paid by the 
receiving State in the course of the half-yearly period in 
respect of every case regarding which the proposed dis- 
tribution on a percentage basis has been accepted, shall 
be sent to the sending States concerned, together with a 
request for reimbursement. Such reimbursement shall be 
made within the shortest possible time, in the currency of 
the receiving State. 

(f) In cases where the application of the provisions of sub- 
paragraphs (b) and (e) of this paragraph would cause a 
Contracting Party serious hardship, it may request the 
North Atlantic Council to arrange a settlement of a different 
nature. 

(g) A member of a force or civilian component shall not be sub- 
ject to any proceedings for the enforcement of any judgment 
given against him in the receiving State in a matter arising 
from the performance of his official duties. 

(h) Except in so far as sub-paragraph (e) of this paragraph 



23 

applies to claims covered by paragraph 2 of this Article, the 
provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any claim 
arising out of or in connexion with the navigation or opera- 
tion of a ship or the loading, carriage, or discharge of a 
cargo, other than claims for death or personal injury to 
which paragraph 4 of this Article does not apply. 

6. Claims against members of a force or civilian component arising 
out of tortious acts or omissions in the receiving State not done in the 
performance of official duty shall be dealt with in the following 
manner : — 

(a) The authorities of the receiving State shall consider the 
claim and assess compensation to the claimant in a fair and 
just manner, taking into account all the circumstances of the 
case, including the conduct of the injured person, and shall 
prepare a report on the matter. 

(b) The report shall be delivered to the authorities of the send- 
ing State, who shall then decide without delay whether they 
will offer an ex gratia payment, and, if so, of what amount. 

(c) If an offer of ex gratia payment is made, and accepted by 
the claimant in full satisfaction of his claim, the authorities 
of the sending State shall make the payment themselves and 
inform the authorities of the receiving State of their deci- 
sion and of the sum paid. 

(d) Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the jurisdiction of 
the courts of the receiving State to entertain an action 
against a member of a force or of a civilian component 
unless and until there has been payment in full satisfaction 
of the claim. 

7. Claims arising out of the unauthorised use of any vehicle of the 
armed services of a sending State shall be dealt with in accordance 
with paragraph 6 of this Article, except in so far as the force or 
civilian component is legally responsible. 

8. If a dispute arises as to whether a tortious act or omission of a 
member of a force or civilian component was done in the performance 
of official duty or as to whether the use of any vehicle of the armed 
services of a sending State was unauthorised, the question shall be 
submitted to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with paragraph 
2(b) of this Article, whose decision on this point shall be final and 
conclusive. 

9. The sending State shall not claim immunity from the jurisdic- 
tion of the courts of the receiving State for members of a force or 
civilian component in respect of the civil jurisdiction of the courts of 



24 

the receiving State except to the extent provided in paragraph 5(g) 
of this Article. 

10. The authorities of the sending State and of the receiving State 
shall co-operate in the procurement of evidence for a fair hearing 
and disposal of claims in regard to which the Contracting Parties are 
concerned. 

Article IX 

1. Members of a force or of a civilian component and their depend- 
ents may purchase locally goods necessary for their own consumption, 
and such services as they need, under the same conditions as the na- 
tionals of the receiving State. 

2. Goods which are required from local sources for the subsistence 
of a force or civilian component shall normally be purchased through 
the authorities which purchase such goods for the armed services of 
the receiving State. In order to avoid such purchases having any 
adverse effect on the economy of the receiving State, the component 
authorities of that State shall indicate, when necessary, any articles 
the purchase of which should be restricted or forbidden. 

3. Subject to agreements already in force or which may hereafter 
be made between the authorised representatives of the sending and 
receiving States, the authorities of the receiving State shall assume 
sole responsibility for making suitable arrangements to make avail- 
able to a force or civilian component the buildings and grounds which 
it requires, as well as facilities and services connected therewith. 
These agreements and arrangements shall be, as far as possible, in 
accordance with the regulations governing the accommodation and 
billeting of similar personnel of the receiving State. In the absence 
of a specific contract to the contrary, the laws of the receiving State 
shall determine the rights and obligations arising out of the occupa- 
tion or use of the buildings, grounds, facilities or services. 

4. Local civilian labour requirements of a force or civilian com- 
ponent shall be satisfied in the same way as the comparable require- 
ments of the receiving State and with the assistance of the authorities 
of the receiving State through the employment exchanges. The con- 
ditions of employment and work, in particular wages, supplementary 
payments and conditions for the protection of workers, shall be those 
laid down by the legislation of the receiving State. Such civilian 
workers employed by a force or civilian component shall not be 
regarded for any purpose as being members of that force or civilian 
component. 

5. When a force or civilian component has at the place where it is 
stationed inadequate medical or dental facilities, its members and 



25 

their dependents may receive medical and dental care, including 
hospitalisation, under the same conditions as comparable personnel of 
the receiving State. 

6. The receiving State shall give the most favourable consideration 
to requests for the grant to members of a force or of a civilian com- 
ponent of travelling facilities and concessions with regard to fares. 
These facilities and concessions will be the subject of special arrange- 
ments to be made between the Governments concerned. 

7. Subject to any general or particular financial arrangements be- 
tween the Contracting Parties, payment in local currency for goods, 
accommodation and services furnished under paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and, 
if necessary, 5 and 6, of this Article shall be made promptly by the 
authorities of the force. 

8. Neither a force, nor a civilian component,, nor the members 
thereof, nor their dependents, shall by reason of this Article enjoy 
any exemption from taxes or duties relating to purchases and services 
chargeable under the fiscal regulations of the receiving State. 

Article X 

1. Where the legal incidence of any form of taxation in the receiv- 
ing State depends upon residence or domicile, periods during which a 
member of a force or civilian component is in the territory of that 
State by reason solely of his being a member of such force or civilian 
component shall not be considered as periods of residence therein, or 
as creating a change of residence or domicile, for the purposes of such 
taxation. Members of a force or civilian component shall be exempt 
from taxation in the receiving State on the salary and emoluments 
paid to them as such members by the sending State or on any tangible 
movable property the presence of which in the receiving State is due 
solely to their temporary presence there. 

2. Nothing in this Article shall prevent taxation of a member of a 
force or civilian component with respect to any profitable enterprise, 
other than his employment as such member, in which he may engage 
in the receiving State, and, except as regards his salary and emolu- 
ments and the tangible movable property referred to in paragraph 1, 
nothing in this Article shall prevent taxation to which, even if re- 
garded as having his residence or domicile outside the territory of the 
receiving State, such a member is liable under the law of that State. 

3. Nothing in this Article shall apply to "duty" as defined in para- 
graph 12 of Article XL 

4. For the purposes of this Article the term "member of a force" 
shall not include any person who is a national of the receiving State. 



26 

Article XI 

1. Save as provided expressly to the contrary in this Agreement, 
members of a force and of a civilian component as well as their 
dependents shall be subject to the laws and regulations administered 
by the customs authorities of the receiving State. In particular the 
customs authorities of the receiving State shall have the right, under 
the general conditions laid down by the laws and regulations of the 
receiving State, to search members of a force or civilian component 
and their dependents and to examine their luggage and vehicles, and 
to seize articles pursuant to such laws and regulations. 

2. (a) The temporary importation and the re-exportation of serv- 

ice vehicles of a force or civilian component under their own 
power shall be authorised free of duty on presentation of a 
triptyque in the form shown in the Appendix to this 
Agreement. 

(b) The temporary importation of such vehicles not under their 
own power shall be governed by paragraph 4 of this Article 
and the re-exportation thereof by paragraph 8. 

(c) Service vehicles of a force or civilian component shall be 
exempt from any tax payable in respect of the use of vehi- 
cles on the roads. 

3. Official documents under official seal shall not be subject to 
customs inspection. Couriers, whatever their status, carrying these 
documents must be in possession of an individual movement order, 
issued in accordance with paragraph 2(b) of Article III. This move- 
ment order shall show the number of despatches carried and certify 
that they contain only official documents. 

4. A force may import free of duty the equipment for the force 
and reasonable quantities of provisions, supplies and other goods for 
the exclusive use of the force and, in cases where such use is permitted 
by the receiving State, its civilian component and dependents. This 
duty-free importation shall be subject to the deposit, at the customs 
office for the place of entry, together with such customs documents 
as shall be agreed, of a certificate in a form agreed between the 
receiving State and the sending State signed by a person authorised 
by the sending State for that purpose. The designation of the person 
authorised to sign the certificates as well as specimens of the signa- 
tures and stamps to be used, shall be sent to the customs administra- 
tion of the receiving State. 

5. A member of a force or civilian component may, at the time of 
his first arrival to take up service in the receiving State or at the time 
of the first arrival of any dependent to join him, import his personal 
effects and furniture free of duty for the term of such service. 



27 

6. Members of a force or civilian component may import tempo- 
rarily free of duty their private motor vehicles for the personal use 
of themselves and their dependents. There is no obligation under this 
Article to grant exemption from taxes payable in respect of the use 
of roads by private vehicles. 

7. Imports made by the authorities of a force other than for the 
exclusive use of that force and its civilian component, and imports, 
other than those dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article, 
effected by members of a force or civilian component are not, by 
reason of this Article, entitled to any exemption from duty or other 
conditions. 

8. Goods which have been imported duty-free under paragraphs 
2(b), 4, 5 or 6 above — 

(a) may be re-exported freely, provided that, in the case of 
goods imported under paragraph 4, a certificate, issued in 
accordance with that paragraph, is presented to the customs 
office : the customs authorities, however, may verify that the 
goods re-exported are as described in the certificate, if any, 
and have in fact been imported under the conditions of 
paragraphs 2(b) , 4, 5 or 6 as the case may be ; 

(b) shall not normally be disposed of in the receiving State by 
way of either sale or gift: however, in particular cases 
such disposal may be authorised on conditions imposed by 
the authorities concerned of the receiving State (for in- 
stance, on payment of duty and tax and compliance with the 
requirements of the controls of trade and exchange) . 

9. Goods purchased in the receiving State shall be exported there- 
from only in accordance with the regulations in force in the receiving 
State. 

10. Special arrangements for crossing frontiers shall be granted by 
the customs authorities to regularly constituted units or formations, 
provided that the customs authorities concerned have been duly noti- 
fied in advance. 

11. Special arrangements shall be made by the receiving State so 
that fuel, oil and lubricants for use in service vehicles, aircraft and 
vessels of a force or civilian component, may be delivered free of all 
duties and taxes. 

12. In paragraphs 1-10 of this Article — 

"duty" means customs duties and all other duties and taxes pay- 
able on importation or exportation, as the case may be, except 
dues and taxes which are no more than charges for services 
rendered ; 

'importation" includes withdrawal from customs warehouses or 



a*. 



28 

continuous customs custody, provided that the goods concerned 

have not been grown, produced or manufactured in the receiving 

State. 

13. The provisions of this Article shall apply to the goods con- 
cerned not only when they are imported into or exported from the 
receiving State, but also when they are in transit through the ter- 
ritory of a Contracting Party, and for this purpose the expression 
"receiving State" in this Article shall be regarded as including any 
Contracting Party through whose territory the goods are passing in 
transit. 

Article XII 

1. The customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State may, as 
a condition of the grant of any customs or fiscal exemption or conces- 
sion provided for in this Agreement, require such conditions to be 
observed as they may deem necessary to prevent abuse. 

2. These authorities may refuse any exemption provided for by 
this Agreement in respect of the importation into the receiving State 
of articles grown, produced or manufactured in that State which 
have been exported therefrom without payment of, or upon repay- 
ment of, taxes or duties which would have been chargeable but for 
such exportation. Goods removed from a customs warehouse shall be 
deemed to be imported if they were regarded as having been exported 
by reason of being deposited in the warehouse. 

Article XIII 

1. In order to prevent offences against customs and fiscal laws and 
regulations, the authorities of the receiving and of the sending States 
shall assist each other in the conduct of enquiries and the collection of 
evidence. 

2. The authorities of a force shall render all assistance within their 
power to ensure that articles liable to seizure by, or on behalf of, the 
customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State are handed to those 
authorities. 

3. The authorities of a force shall render all assistance within their 
power to ensure the payment of duties, taxes and penalties payable by 
members of the force or civilian component or their dependents. 

4. Service vehicles and articles belonging to a force or to its civilian 
component, and not to a member of such force or civilian component, 
seized by the authorities of the receiving State in connexion with an 
offence against its customs or fiscal laws or regulations shall be 
handed over to the appropriate authorities of the force concerned. 



29 



Article XIV 



1. A force, a civilian component and the members thereof, as well 
as their dependents, shall remain subject to the foreign exchange 
regulations of the sending State and shall also be subject to the regu- 
lations of the receiving State. 

2. The foreign exchange authorities of the sending and the receiv- 
ing States may issue special regulations applicable to a force or 
civilian component or the members thereof as well as to their 
dependents. 

Article XV 

1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article, this Agreement shall 
remain in force in the event of hostilities to which the North Atlantic 
Treaty applies, except that the provisions for settling claims in para- 
graphs 2 and 5 of Article VIII shall not apply to war damage, and 
that the provisions of the Agreement, and, in particular of Articles 
III and VII, shall immediately be reviewed by the Contracting 
Parties concerned, who may agree to such modifications as they may 
consider desirable regarding the application of the Agreement be- 
tween them. 

2. In the event of such hostilities, each of the Contracting Parties 
shall have the right, by giving 60 days' notice to the other Contract- 
ing Parties, to suspend the application of any of the provisions of 
this Agreement so far as it is concerned. If this right is exercised, the 
Contracting Parties shall immediately consult with a view to agree- 
ing on suitable provisions to replace the provisions suspended. 

Article XVI 

All differences between the Contracting Parties relating to the 
interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled by 
negotiation between them without recourse to any outside jurisdiction. 
Except where express provision is made to the contrary in this 
Agreement, differences which cannot be settled by direct negotiation 
shall be referred to the North Atlantic Council. 

Article XVII 

Any Contracting Party may at any time request the revision of any 
Article of this Agreement. The request shall be addressed to the 
North Atlantic Council. 

Article XVIII 

1. The present Agreement shall be ratified and the instruments of 
ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Govern- 



30 

ment of the United States of America, which shall notify each signa- 
tory State of the date of deposit thereof. 

2. Thirty days after four signatory States have deposited their 
instruments of ratification the present Agreement shall come into 
force between them. It shall come into force for each other signatory 
State thirty days after the deposit of its instrument of ratification. 

3. After it has come into force, the present Agreement shall, subject 
to the approval of the North Atlantic Council and to such conditions 
as it may decide, be open to accession on behalf of any State which 
accedes to the North Atlantic Treaty. Accession shall be effected by 
the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Government of the 
United States of America, which shall notify each signatory and 
acceding State of the date of deposit thereof. In respect of any State 
on behalf of which an instrument of accession is deposited, the 
present Agreement shall come into force thirty days after the date of 
the deposit of such instrument. 

Article XIX 

1. The present Agreement may be denounced by any Contracting 
Party after the expiration of a period of four years from the date on 
which the Agreement comes into force. 

2. The denunciation of the Agreement by any Contracting Party 
shall be effected by a written notification addressed by that Contract- 
ing Party to the Government of the United States of America which 
shall notify all the other Contracting Parties of each such notification 
and the date of receipt thereof. 

3. The denunciation shall take effect one year after the receipt of 
the notification by the Government of the United States of America. 
After the expiration of this period of one year, the Agreement shall 
cease to be in force as regards the Contracting Party which denounces 
it, but shall continue in force for the remaining Contracting Parties. 

Article XX 

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article, 
the present Agreement shall apply only to the metropolitan territory 
of a Contracting Party. 

2. Any State may, however, at the time of the deposit of its instru- 
ment of ratification or accession or at any time thereafter, declare 
by notification given to the Government of the United States of 
America that the present Agreement shall extend (subject, if the 
State making the declaration considers it to be necessary, to the con- 
clusion of a special agreement between that State and each of the 



31 

sending States concerned), to all or any of the territories for whose 
international relations it is responsible in the North Atlantic Treaty 
area. The present Agreement shall then extend to the territory or 
territories named therein thirty days after the receipt by the Govern- 
ment of the United States of the notification, or thirty days after the 
conclusion of the special agreements if required, or when it has come 
into force under Article XVIII, whichever is the later. 

3. A State which has made a declaration under paragraph 2 of this 
Article extending the present Agreement to any territory for whose 
international relations it is responsible may denounce the Agreement 
separately in respect of that territory in accordance with the provi- 
sions of Article XIX. 

In witness whereof the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Agreement. 

Done in London this nineteenth day of June, 1951, in the English 
and French languages, both texts being equally authoritative, in a 
single original which shall be deposited in the archives of the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America. The Government of the 
United States of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to all 
the signatory and acceding States. 

[There follow the signatures on behalf of the twelve original 
NATO countries — Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, 
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 4 United 
Kingdom, United States. 5 ] 



4 Portugal signed the Agreement with the following reservation : "The Agree- 
ment is only applicable to the territory of Continental Portugal, with the exclu- 
sion of the Adjacent Islands and the Overseas Provinces." 

5 The United States signed the Agreement without reservation. It was rati- 
fied, however, subject to the following statement, which was made by the 
Senate in advising and consenting to ratification : 

It is the understanding of the Senate, which understanding inheres in its 
advice and consent to the ratification of the Agreement, that nothing in the 
Agreement diminishes, abridges, or alters the right of the United States of 
America to safeguard its own security by excluding or removing persons whose 
presence in the United States is deemed prejudicial to its safety or security, 
and that no person whose presence in the United States is deemed prejudicial 
to its safety or security shall be permitted to enter or remain in the United 
States. 

In giving its advice and consent to ratification, it is the sense of the Senate 
that: 

1. The criminal jurisdiction provisions of Article VII do. not constitute a 
precedent for future agreements. 

2. Where a person subject to the military jurisdiction of the United 
States is to be tried by the authorities of a receiving State under the treaty, 
the Commanding Officer of the Armed Forces of the United States in such 



32 



State shall examine the laws of such State with particular reference to the 
procedural safeguards contained in the Constitution of the United States; 

3. If, in the opinion of such commanding officer, under all the circum- 
stances of the case, there is danger that the accused will not be protected 
because of the absence or denial of constitutional rights he would enjoy in 
the United States, the commanding officer shall request the authorities of 
the receiving State to waive jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions 
of paragraph 3(c) of Article VII (which requires the receiving State to 
give "sympathetic consideration" to such request) and if such authorities 
refuse to waive jurisdiction, the commanding officer shall request the De- 
partment of State to press such request through diplomatic channels and 
notification shall be given by the Executive Branch to the Armed Services 
Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives ; 

4. A representative of the United States to be appointed by the Chief of 
Diplomatic Mission with the advice of the senior United States military 
representative in the receiving State will attend the trial of any such person 
by the authorities of a receiving State under the agreement, and any failure 
to comply with the provisions of paragraph 9 of Article VII of the agree- 
ment shall be reported to the commanding officer of the armed forces of 
the United States in such State who shall then request the Department of 
State to take appropriate action to protect the rights of the accused, and 
notification shall be given by the Executive Branch to the Armed Services 
Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. 



33 



Country 

Valid from 

for temporary importation to 

of the following service vehicle 

Type 



APPENDIX 



TRIPTYQUE 6 



Ministry or Service 



To 



Registration Number 



Engine Number 



Spare tyres 

Fixed 

Communication Equipment 



Name and signature of the holder of the triptyque 

Date of issue 

By order of 



TEMPORARY EXITS AND ENTRIES 



Name of Port or Customs 
Station 



Date 



Signature and Stamp of 
Customs Officer 



Exit 



Entry 
Exit 



Entry 



Exit 



Entry 



Exit 
Entry 



«This document shall be in the language of the sending State and in the 
English and French languages. [Footnote in original text]. 



34 

B. AGREEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC 
TREATY ORGANISATION, NATIONAL REPRESENTA- 
TIVES AND INTERNATIONAL STAFF 1 

The States signatory to the present Agreement, 

Considering that for the exercise of the functions and the fulfil- 
ment of their purposes it is necessary that the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organisation, its international staff and the representatives of Mem- 
ber States attending meetings thereof should have the status set out 
hereunder, 

Have agreed as follows : 

Part I. — General 

Article 1 

In the present Agreement, 

(a) "the Organisation" means the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- 
nisation consisting of the Council and its subsidiary bodies; 

(b) "the Council" means the Council established under Article 9 
of the North Atlantic Treaty and the Council Deputies; 

(c) "subsidiary bodies" means any organ, committee or service 
established by the Council or under its authority, except those 
to which, in accordance with Article 2, this Agreement does 
not apply ; 

(d) "Chairman of the Council Deputies" includes, in his absence, 
the Vice-Chairman acting for him. 

Article 2 

The present Agreement shall not apply to any military headquart- 
ers established in pursuance of the North Atlantic Treaty nor, unless 
the Council decides otherwise, to any other military bodies. 

Article 3 

The Organisation and Member States shall co-operate at all times 
to facilitate the proper administration of justice, secure the observ- 
ance of police regulations and prevent the occurrence of any abuse 
in connexion with the immunities and privileges set out in the present 
Agreement. If any Member State considers that there has been an 
abuse of any immunity or privilege conferred by this Agreement, 



1 TIAS 2992 ; 5 UST 1087 ; 200 UNTS 3. 



35 

consultations shall be held between that State and the Organisation, 
or between the States concerned, to determine whether any such 
abuse has occurred, and, if so, to attempt to ensure that no repetition 
occurs. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provisions of 
this Agreement, a Member State which considers that any person 
has abused his privilege of residence or any other privilege or immu- 
nity granted to him under this Agreement may require him to leave 
its territory. 

Part II. — The Organisation 

Article 4 

The Organisation shall possess juridical personality; it shall have 
the capacity to conclude contracts, to acquire and dispose of movable 
and immovable property and to institute legal proceedings. 

Article 5 

The Organisation, its property and assets, wheresoever located and 
by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal 
process except in so far as in any particular case the Chairman of 
the Council Deputies acting on behalf of the Organisation, may ex- 
pressly authorise the waiver of this immunity. It is, however, under- 
stood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of 
execution or detention of property. 

Article 6 

The premises of the Organisation shall be inviolable. Its property 
and assets, wheresoever located and by whomsoever held, shall be 
immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any 
other form of interference. 

Article 7 

The archives of the Organisation and all documents belonging to 
it or held by it shall be inviolable, wherever located. 

Article 8 

1. Without being restricted by financial controls, regulations or 
moratoria of any kind, 

(a) the Organisation may hold currency of any kind and oper- 
ate accounts in any currency ; 

(b) the Organisation may freely transfer its funds from one 



36 

country to another or within any country and convert any 
currency held by it into any other currency at the most 
favourable official rate of exchange for a sale or purchase 
as the case may be. 
2. In exercising its rights under paragraph 1 above, the Organisa- 
tion shall pay due regard to any representations made by any Mem- 
ber State and shall give effect to such representations in so far as it 
is practicable to do so. 

Article 9 

The Organisation, its assets, income and other property shall be 
exempt : 

(a) from all direct taxes; the Organisation will not, however, 
claim exemption from rates, taxes or dues which are no 
more than charges for public utility services; 

(b) from all customs duties and quantitative restrictions on im- 
ports and exports in respect of articles imported or exported 
by the Organisation for its official use; articles imported 
under such exemption shall not be disposed of, by way either 
of sale or gift, in the country into which they are imported 
except under conditions approved by the Government of that 
country ; 

(c) from all customs duties and quantitative restrictions on im- 
ports and exports in respect of its publications. 

Article 10 

While the Organisation will not as a general rule claim exemption 
from excise duties and from taxes on the sale of movable and immov- 
able property which form part of the price to be paid, nevertheless, 
when the Organisation is making important purchases for official use 
of property on which such duties and taxes have been charged or are 
chargeable, Member States will whenever possible make the appro- 
priate administrative arrangements for the remission or return of the 
amount of duty or tax. 

Article 11 

1. No censorship shall be applied to the official correspondence and 
other official communications of the Organisation. 

2. The Organisation shall have the right to use codes and to des- 
patch and receive correspondence by courier or in sealed bags, which 
shall have the same immunities and privileges as diplomatic couriers 
and bags. 



37 

3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to preclude the adop- 
tion of appropriate security precautions to be determined by agree- 
ment between a Member State and the Council acting on behalf of 
the Organisation. 

Part III. — Representatives of Member States 

Article 12 

Every person designated by a Member State as its principal perma- 
nent representative to the Organisation in the territory of another 
Member State, and such members of his official staff resident in that 
territory as may be agreed between the State which has designated 
them and the Organisation and between the Organisation and the 
State in which they will be resident, shall enjoy the immunities and 
privileges accorded to diplomatic representatives and their official 
staff of comparable rank. 

Article 13 

1. Any representative of a Member State to the Council or any of 
the subsidiary bodies who is not covered by Article 12 shall, while 
present in the territory of another Member State for the discharge 
of his duties, enjoy the following privileges and immunities: 

(a) the same immunity from personal arrest or detention as that 
accorded to diplomatic personnel of comparable rank ; 

(b) in respect of words spoken or written and of acts done by 
him in his official capacity, immunity from legal process; 

(c) inviolability for all papers and documents; 

(d) the right to use codes and to receive and send papers or cor- 
respondence by courier or in sealed bags ; 

(e) the same exemption in respect of himself and his spouse 
from immigration restrictions, aliens registration and na- 
tional service obligations as that accorded to diplomatic 
personnel of comparable rank ; 

(f ) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restric- 
tions as are accorded to diplomatic personnel of comparable 
rank; 

(g) the same immunities and facilities in respect of his per- 
sonal baggage as are accorded to diplomatic personnel of 
comparable rank; 

(h) the right to import free of duty his furniture and effects at 
the time of first arrival to take up his post in the country 
in question, and, on the termination of his functions in that 
country, to re-export such furniture and effects free of duty, 



38 

subject in either case to such conditions as the Government 
of the country in which the right is exercised may deem 
necessary ; 
(i) the right to import temporarily free of duty his private 
motor vehicle for his own personal use and subsequently to 
re-export such vehicle free of duty, subject in either case to 
such conditions as the Government of the country concerned 
may deem necessary. 

2. Where the legal incidence of any form of taxation depends upon 
residence, a period during which a representative to whom this Arti- 
cle applies is present in the territory of another Member State for 
the discharge of his duties shall not be considered as a period of 
residence. In particular, he shall be exempt from taxation on his 
official salary and emoluments during such periods of duty. 

3. In this Article "representative" shall be deemed to include all 
representatives, advisers and technical experts of delegations. Each 
Member State shall communicate to the other Member States con- 
cerned, if they so request, the names of its representatives to whom 
this Article applies and the probable duration of their stay in the 
territories of such other Member States. 

Article 14 

Official clerical staff accompanying a representative of a Member 
State who are not covered by Articles 12 or 13 shall, while present 
in the territory of another Member State for the discharge of their 
duties, be accorded the privileges and immunities set out in para- 
graph 1 (b), (c), (e), (f), (h) and (i) and paragraph 2 of Arti- 
cle 13. 

Article 15 

Privileges and immunities are accorded to the representatives of 
Member States and their staffs not for the personal benefit of the 
individuals themselves, but in order to safeguard the independent 
exercise of their functions in connection with the North Atlantic 
Treaty. Consequently, a Member State not only has the right, but 
is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representatives and 
members of their staffs in any case where, in its opinion, the immu- 
nity would impede the course of justice and can be waived without 
prejudice to the purposes for which the immunity is accorded. 

Article 16 

The provisions of Articles 12 to 14 above shall not require any 
State to grant any of the privileges or immunities referred to therein 



39 

to any person who is its national or to any person as its representative 
or as a member of the staff of such representative. 

Part IV. — Internaitonal Staff and Experts on Missions 
for the Organisation 

Article 17 

The categories of officials of the Organisation to which Articles 18 
to 20 apply shall be agreed between the Chairman of the Council 
Deputies and each of the Member States concerned. The Chairman 
of the Council Deputies shall communicate to the Member States the 
names of the officials included in these categories. 

Article 18 

Officials of the Organisation agreed upon under Article 17 shall: 

(a) be immune from legal process in respect of words spoken or 
written and of acts done by them in their official capacity 
and within the limits of their authority; 

(b) be granted, together with their spouses and members of their 
immediate families residing with and dependent on them, 
the same immunities from immigration restrictions and 
aliens' registration as is accorded to diplomatic personnel of 
comparable rank ; 

(c) be accorded the same facilities in respect of currency or ex- 
change restrictions as are accorded to diplomatic personnel 
of comparable rank ; 

(d) be given, together with their spouses and members of their 
immediate families residing with and dependent on them, 
the same repatriation facilities in time of international crisis 
as are accorded to diplomatic personnel of comparable rank ; 

(e) have the right to import free of duty their furniture and 
effects at the time of first arrival to take up their post in 
the country in question, and, on the termination of their 
functions in that country, to re-export such furniture and 
effects free of duty, subject in either case to such conditions 
as the Government of the country in which the right is 
exercised may deem necessary ; 

(f) have the right to import temporarily free of duty their 
private motor vehicles for their own personal use and subse- 
quently to re-export such vehicles free of duty, subject in 
either case to such conditions as the Government of the 
country concerned may pleem necessary. 



40 

Article 19 

Officials of the Organisation agreed under Article 17 shall be 
exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to them 
by the Organisation in their capacity as such officials. Any Member 
State may, however, conclude an arrangement with the Council acting 
on behalf of the Organisation whereby such Member State will em- 
ploy and assign to the Organisation all of its nationals (except, if 
such Member State so desires, any not ordinarily resident within its 
territory) who are to serve on the international staff of the Organisa- 
tion and pay the salaries and emoluments of such persons from its 
own funds at a scale fixed by it. The salaries and emoluments so paid 
may be taxed by such Member State but shall be exempt from taxa- 
tion by any other Member State. If such an arrangement is entered 
into by any Member State and is subsequently modified or termi- 
nated, Member States shall no longer be bound under the first sen- 
tence of this Article to exempt from taxation the salaries and emolu- 
ments paid to their nationals. 

Article 20 

In addition to the immunities and privileges specified in Articles 
18 and 19, the Executive Secretary of the Organisation, the Co-ordi- 
nator of North Atlantic Defence Production, and such other perma- 
nent officials of similar rank as may be agreed between the Chairman 
of the Council Deputies and the Governments of Member States, 
shall be accorded the privileges and immunities normally accorded 
to diplomatic personnel of comparable rank. 

Article 21 

1. Experts (other than officials coming within the scope of Articles 
18 to 20) employed on missions on behalf of the Organisation shall 
be accorded the following privileges and immunities so far as is 
necessary for the effective exercise of their functions while present 
in the territory of a Member State for the discharge of their duties : 

(a) immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure 
of their personal baggage ; 

(b) in respect of words spoken or written or acts done by them 
in the performance of their official functions for the Orga- 
nisation, immunity from legal process ; 

(c) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restric- 
tions and in respect of their personal baggage as are ac- 
corded to officials of foreign Governments on temporary 
official missions ; 



41 

(d) inviolability for all papers and documents relating to the 
work on which they are engaged for the Organisation. 
2. The Chairman of the Council Deputies shall communicate to the 
Member States concerned the names of any experts to whom this 
Article applies. 

Article 22 

Privileges and immunities are granted to officials and experts in 
the interests of the Organisation and not for the personal benefit of 
the individuals themselves. The Chairman of the Council Deputies 
shall have the right and the duty to waive the immunity of any 
official or expert in any case where, in his opinion, the immunity 
would impede the course of justice and can be waived without preju- 
dice to the interests of the Organisation. 

Article 23 

The provisions of Articles 18, 20 and 21, above shall not require 
any State to grant any of the privileges or immunities referred to 
therein to any person who is its national, except: 

(a) immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or 
written or acts done by him in the performance of his offi- 
cial functions for the Organisation ; 

(b) inviolability for all papers and documents relating to the 
work on which he is engaged for the Organisation; 

(c) facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions so 
far as necessary for the effective exercise of his functions. 

Part V. — Settlement of Disputes 

Article 24 

The Council shall make provision for appropriate modes of settle- 
ment of : 

(a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a pri- 
vate character to which the Organisation is a party; 

(b) disputes involving any official or expert of the Organisation 
to whom Part IV of this Agreement applies who by reason 
of his official position enjoys immunity, if immunity has not 
been waived in accordance with the provisions of Article 22. 

Part VI. — Supplementary Agreements 

Article 25 

The Council acting on behalf of the Organisation may conclude 
with any Member State or States supplementary agreements modify- 



42 

ing the provisions of the present Agreement, so far as that State or 
those States are concerned. 

Part VII, — Final Provisions 

Article 26 

1. The present Agreement shall be open for signature by Member 
States of the Organisation and shall be subject to ratification. In- 
struments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of 
the United States of America, which will notify all signatory States 
of each such deposit. 

2. As soon as six signatory States have deposited their instruments 
of ratification, the present Agreement shall come into force in respect 
of those States. It shall come into force in respect of each other 
signatory State, on the date of the deposit of its instrument of 
ratification. 

Article 27 

The present Agreement may be denounced by any Contracting 
State by giving written notification of denunciation to the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America, which will notify all signa- 
tory States of each such notification. The denunciation shall take 
effect one year after the receipt of the notification by the Government 
of the United States of America. 

In witness whereof the undersigned plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Agreement. 

Done in Ottawa this twentieth day of September, 1951, in French 
and in English, both texts being equally authoritative, in a single 
copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of 
the United States of America which will transmit a certified copy to 
each of the signatory States. 

[There follow the signatures on behalf of the twelve original 
NATO countries — Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, 
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 2 United 
Kingdom, United States.] 



2 "Reserving the non-application of Article 6 in case of expropriation." 



43 

C. PROTOCOL ON THE STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL MILI- 
TARY HEADQUARTERS SET UP PURSUANT TO THE 
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY * 

The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington 
on 4th April, 1949, 2 

Considering that international military Headquarters may be 
established in their territories, by separate arrangement, under the 
North Atlantic Treaty, and 

Desiring to define the status of such Headquarters and of the per- 
sonnel thereof within the North Atlantic Treaty area, 

Have agreed to the present Protocol to the Agreement signed in 
London on 19th June, 1951, regarding the Status of their Forces : 3 

Article 1 

In the present Protocol the expression 

(a) "the Agreement" means the Agreement signed in London 
on 19th June, 1951, by the Parties to the North Atlantic 
Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces; 

(b) "Supreme Headquarters" means Supreme Headquarters Al- 
lied Powers in Europe, Headquarters of the Supreme Allied 
Commander Atlantic and any equivalent international mili- 
tary Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic 
Treaty ; 

(c) "Allied Headquarters" means any Supreme Headquarters 
and any international military Headquarters set up pursuant 
to the North Atlantic Treaty which is immediately subordi- 
nate to a Supreme Headquarters; 

(d) "North Atlantic Council" means the Council established by 
Article 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty or any of its sub- 
sidiary bodies authorised to act on its behalf. 

Article 2 

Subject to the following provisions of this Protocol, the Agreement 
shall apply to Allied Headquarters in the territory of a Party to the 
present Protocol in the North Atlantic Treaty area, and to the mili- 
tary and civilian personnel of such Headquarters and their depend- 

i TIAS 2978 ; 5 UST 870 ; 200 UNTS 340. The final text was distributed, for 
information and record purposes, as C-M(52) 30(F) (omitted here), on 26 Sep- 
tember 1952. 

2 63 Stat., pt. 2, 2241 ; TIAS 1964 ; 34 UNTS 243. 

3 TIAS 2846 ; 4 UST 1792 ; 199 UNTS 67. 



44 

ents included in the definitions in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) 
of paragraph 1 of Article 3 of this Protocol, when such personnel 
are present in any such territory in connection with their official 
duties or, in the case of dependents, the official duties of their spouse 
or parent. 

Article 3 

1. For the purpose of applying the Agreement to an Allied Head- 
quarters the expressions "force," "civilian component" and "depend- 
ent," wherever they occur in the Agreement, shall have the meaning 
set out below : 

(a) "force" means the personnel attached to the Allied Head- 
quarters who belong to the land, sea or air armed services 
of any Party to the North Atlantic Treaty ; 

(b) "civilian component" means civilian personnel who are not 
stateless persons, nor nationals of any State which is not a 
Party to the Treaty, nor nationals of, nor ordinarily resident 
in the receiving State, and who are (i) attached to the Al- 
lied Headquarters and in the employ of an armed service 
of a Party to the North Atlantic Treaty or (ii) in such 
categories of civilian personnel in the employ of the Allied 
Headquarters as the North Atlantic Council shall decide; 

(c) "dependent" means the spouse of a member of a force or 
civilian component, as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of this paragraph, or a child of such member depending on 
him or her for support. 

2. An Allied Headquarters shall be considered to be a force for 
the purposes of Article II, paragraph 2 of Article V, paragraph 10 
of Article VII, paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of Article IX, and Article 
XIII, of the Agreement. 

Article 4 

The rights and obligations which the Agreement gives to or im- 
poses upon the sending State or its authorities in respect of its forces 
or their civilian components or dependents shall, in respect of an 
Allied Headquarters and its personnel and their dependents to whom 
the Agreement applies in accordance with Article 2 of the present 
Protocol, be vested in or attach to the appropriate Supreme Head- 
quarters and the authorities responsible under it, except that 

(a) the right which is given by Article VII of the Agreement to 
the military authorities of the sending State to exercise 
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction shall be vested in the 
military authorities of the State, if any, to whose military 
law the person concerned is subject; 



45 

(b) the obligations imposed upon the sending State or its au- 
thorities by Article II, paragraph 4 of Article III, para- 
graphs 5(a) and 6(a) of Article VII, paragraphs 9 and 10 
of Article VIII, and Article XIII, of the Agreement, shall 
attach both to the Allied Headquarters and to any State 
whose armed service, or any member or employee of whose 
armed service, or the dependent of such member or em- 
ployee, is concerned ; 

(c) for the purposes of paragraphs 2(a) and 5 of Article III, 
and Article XIV, of the Agreement, the sending State shall 
be, in the case of members of a force and their dependents, 
the State to whose armed service the member belongs, or, 
in the case of members of a civilian component and their 
dependents, the State, if any, by whose armed service the 
member is employed ; 

(d) the obligations imposed on the sending State by virtue of 
paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article VIII of the Agreement shall 
attach to the State to whose armed service the person be- 
longs whose act or omission has given rise to the claim or, 
in the case of a member of a civilian component, to the 
State by whose armed service he is employed or, if there is 
no such State, to the Allied Headquarters of which the per- 
son concerned is a member. 

Both the State, if any, to which obligations attach under this 
paragraph and the Allied Headquarters concerned shall have the 
rights of the sending State in connection with the appointment of an 
arbitrator under paragraph 8 of Article VIII. 

Article 5 

Every member of an Allied Headquarters shall have a personal 
identity card issued by the Headquarters showing names, date and 
place of birth, nationality, rank or grade, number (if any), photo- 
graph and period of validity. This card must be presented on 
demand. 

Article 6 

1. The obligations to waive claims imposed on the Contracting 
Parties by Article VIII of the Agreement shall attach both to the 
Allied Headquarters and to any Party to this Protocol concerned. 

2. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article VIII of 
the Agreement, 

(a) property owned by an Allied Headquarters or by a Party 
to this Protocol and used by an Allied Headquarters shall 



46 

be deemed to be property owned by a Contracting Party 
and used by its armed services ; 

(b) damage caused by a member of a force or civilian compo- 
nent as defined in paragraph 1 of Article 3 of this Protocol 
or by any other employee of an Allied Headquarters shall 
be deemed to be damage caused by a member or employee 
of the armed services of a Contracting Party; 

(c) the definition of the expression "owned by a Contracting 
Party" in paragraph 3 of Article VIII shall apply in re- 
spect of an Allied Headquarters. 

3. The claims to which paragraph 5 of Article VIII of the Agree- 
ment applies shall include claims (other than contractual claims and 
claims to which paragraphs 6 or 7 of that Article apply) arising out 
of acts or omissions of any employees of an Allied Headquarters, or 
out of any other act, omission or occurrence for which an Allied 
Headquarters is legally responsible, and causing damage in the terri- 
tory of a receiving State to third parties, other than any of the 
Parties to this Protocol. 

Article 7 

1. The exemption from taxation accorded under Article X of the 
Agreement to members of a force or civilian component in respect of 
their salaries and emoluments shall apply, as regards personnel of an 
Allied Headquarters within the definitions in paragraphs 1(a) and 
(b) (i) of Article 3 of this Protocol, to salaries and emoluments paid 
to them as such personnel by the armed service to which they belong 
or by which they are employed, except that this paragraph shall not 
exempt any such member or employee from taxation imposed by a 
State of which he is a national. 

2. Employees of an Allied Headquarters of categories agreed by 
the North Atlantic Council, shall be exempted from taxation on the 
salaries and emoluments paid to them by the Allied Headquarters in 
their capacity as such employees. Any Party to the present Protocol 
may, however, conclude an arrangement with the Allied Headquar- 
ters whereby such Party will employ and assign to the Allied Head- 
quarters all of its nationals (except, if such Party so desires, any not 
ordinarily resident within its territory) who are to serve on the staff 
of the Allied Headquarters and pay the salaries and emoluments of 
such persons from its own funds, at a scale fixed by it. The salaries 
and emoluments so paid may be taxed by the Party concerned but 
shall be exempted from taxation by any other Party. If such an 
arrangement is entered into by any Party to the present Protocol and 
is subsequently modified or terminated, Parties to the present Pro- 



47 

tocol shall no longer be bound under the first sentence of this para- 
graph to exempt from taxation the salaries and emoluments paid to 
their nationals. 

Article 8 

1. For the purpose of facilitating the establishment, construction, 
maintenance and operation of Allied Headquarters, these Headquar- 
ters shall be relieved, so far as practicable, from duties and taxes, 
affecting expenditures by them in the interest of the common defense 
and for their official and exclusive benefit, and each Party to the 
present Protocol shall enter into negotiations with any Allied Head- 
quarters operating in its territory for the purpose of concluding an 
agreement to give effect to this provision. 

2. An Allied Headquarters shall have the rights granted to a force 
under Article XI of the Agreement subject to the same conditions. 

3. The provisions in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article XI of the 
Agreement shall not apply to nationals of the receiving States, unless 
such nationals belong to the armed services of a Party to this Pro- 
tocol other than the receiving State. 

4. The expression "duties and taxes" in this Article does not in- 
clude charges for services rendered. 

Article 9 

Except in so far as the North Atlantic Council may decide other- 
wise, 

(a) any assets acquired from the international funds of an Allied 
Headquarters under its capital budget and no longer required 
by the. Headquarters shall be disposed of under arrangements 
approved by the North Atlantic Council and the proceeds shall 
be distributed among or credited to the Parties to the North 
Atlantic Treaty in the proportions in which they have con- 
tributed to the capital costs of the Headquarters. The receiv- 
ing State shall have the prior right to acquire any immovable 
property so disposed of in its territory, provided that it offers 
terms no less favourable than those offered by any third 
party; 

(b) any land, buildings or fixed installations provided for the use 
of an Allied Headquarters by the receiving State without 
charge to the Headquarters (other than a nominal charge) 
and no longer required by the Headquarters shall be handed 
back to the receiving State, and any increase or loss in the 
value of the property provided by the receiving State result- 



48 

ing from its use by the Headquarters shall be determined by 
the North Atlantic Council (taking into consideration any 
applicable law of the receiving State) and distributed among 
or credited or debited to the Parties to the North Atlantic 
Treaty in the proportions in which they have contributed to 
the capital costs of the Headquarters. 

Article 10 

Each Supreme Headquarters shall possess juridical personality; it 
shall have the capacity to conclude contracts and to acquire and dis- 
pose of property. The receiving State may, however, make the exer- 
cise of such capacity subject to special arrangements between it and 
the Supreme Headquarters or any subordinate Allied Headquarters 
acting on behalf of the Supreme Headquarters. 

Article 11 

1. Subject to the provisions of Article VIII of the Agreement, a 
Supreme Headquarters may engage in legal proceedings as claimant 
or defendant. However, the receiving State and the Supreme Head- 
quarters or any subordinate Allied Headquarters authorised by it 
may agree that the receiving State shall act on behalf of the Supreme 
Headquarters in any legal proceedings to which that Headquarters is 
a party before the courts of the receiving State. 

2. No measure of execution or measure directed to the seizure or 
attachment of its property or funds shall be taken against any Allied 
Headquarters, except for the purposes of paragraph 6(a) of Article 
VII and Article XIII of the Agreement. 

Article 12 

1. To enable it to operate its international budget, an Allied Head- 
quarters may hold currency of any kind and operate accounts in any 
currency. 

2. The Parties to the present Protocol shall, at the request of an 
Allied Headquarters, facilitate transfers of the funds of such Head- 
quarters from one country to another and the convef sion of any cur- 
rency held by an Allied Headquarters into any other currency, when 
necessary to meet the requirements of any Allied Headquarters. 

Article 13 

The archives and other official documents of an Allied Headquar- 
ters kept in premises used by those Headquarters or in the possession 



49 

of any properly authorised member of the Headquarters shall be in- 
violable, unless the Headquarters has waived this immunity. The 
Headquarters shall, at the request of the receiving State and in the 
presence of a representative of that State, verify the nature of any 
documents to confirm that they are entitled to immunity under this 
Article. 

Article 14 

1. The whole or any part of the present Protocol or of the Agree- 
ment may be applied, by decision of the North Atlantic Council, to 
any international military Headquarters or organisation (not in- 
cluded in the definitions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 1 of 
this Protocol) which is established pursuant to the North Atlantic 
Treaty. 

2. When the European Defence Community comes into being, the 
present Protocol may be applied to the personnel of the European 
Defence Forces attached to an Allied Headquarters and their de- 
pendents at such time and in such manner as may be determined by 
the North Atlantic Council. 

Article 15 

All differences between the Parties to the present Protocol or be- 
tween any such Parties and any Allied Headquarters relating to the 
interpretation or application of the Protocol shall be settled by nego- 
tiation between the parties in dispute without recourse to any outside 
jurisdiction. Except where express provision is made to the contrary 
in the present Protocol or in the Agreement, differences which can- 
not be settled by direct negotiation shall be referred to the North 
Atlantic Council. 

Article 16 

1. Articles XV and XVII to XX of the Agreement shall apply as 
regards the present Protocol as if they were an integral part thereof, 
but so that the Protocol may be reviewed, suspended, ratified, ac- 
ceded to, denounced or extended in accordance with those provisions 
independently from the Agreement. 

2. The present Protocol may be supplemented by bilateral agree- 
ment between the receiving State and a Supreme Headquarters, and 
the authorities of a receiving State and a Supreme Headquarters may 
agree to give effect, by administrative means in advance of ratifica- 
tion, to any provisions of this Protocol or of the Agreement as ap- 
plied by it. 



50 

In witness whereof the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Protocol. 

Done in Paris this 28th day of August 1952, in the English and 
French languages, both texts being equally authoritative, in a single 
original which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government 
of the United States of America. The Government of the United 
States of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to all the 
signatory and acceding States. 

[There follow the signatures on behalf of the following NATO 
countries — Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, 
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, 
United Kingdom, United States.] 



PART II. SUMMARY RECORDS 

D-R(50) 1 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 25 July 
1950 



(d) Status of NATO Representatives and International Staff 

7. The Chairman proposed the setting up of a subcommittee to 
consider and report on this item. This was accepted, and the Depu- 
ties of Belgium, France, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom and 
the United States agreed to appoint representatives to serve on this 
subcommittee. 

8. It was pointed out during discussion that from the host Gov- 
ernment's point of view a most important consideration is the extent 
of the privileges and the number of officials to whom such privileges 
would be granted. This also involves consideration of privileges for 
other NATO representatives and their staffs in London, in addition 
to the Council Deputies. The Deputies agreed that the decisions 
taken and the experience gained by Governments with regard to 
privileges for representatives of other international organizations 
will be of assistance to the subcommittee in considering this question. 



D-R(50) 8 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 4 August 
1950 



(d) Status of NATO Representatives and International Staff. 1 
13. The United Kingdom Deputy, as Chairman of the subcommit- 
tee set up to report on this subject, said that the subcommittee were 
agreed that the most satisfactory arrangement in order that NATO 
Representatives and International Staff should be accorded privileges 



i Reference: D-D (50) 19 (4 August 1950). 

51 



52 

and immunities would be for an international agreement to be 
entered into by NATO countries. Such an agreement would also 
cover buildings, etc., occupied by NATO bodies. 

14. Such an agreement would need Parliamentary sanction and 
therefore some few months might elapse before the agreement could 
come into force. In the meantime His Majesty's Government would 
be prepared to arrange for the names of those officials employed on 
delegations to the North Atlantic Council to be included on the diplo- 
matic list of delegations until such time as the international agree- 
ment was entered into. 

15. Paragraph 3(2) gave details regarding those officials who 
would be covered by such an arrangement. Paragraph 3(3) outlined 
the arrangements which His Majesty's Government would be pre- 
pared to make for such officials as were not covered by paragraph 
3(2). 

16. It was agreed to accept the offer kindly made by the United 
Kingdom Deputy that the legal adviser to the United Kingdom 
Delegation would draw up a draft of an international agreement. 2 

17. The report of the subcommittee was approved on the under- 
standing that this question would be considered again by the Council 
Deputies when the United Kingdom Delegation had submitted the 
draft of the international agreement. 



D-R(50) 43 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 17 Decem- 
ber 1950 



IX. Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges for NATO Staffs in 
London. 
55. The United Kingdom Deputy stated that the draft Convention 
defining the status in the United Kingdom of the National Delega- 
tions to NATO and the members of the International Secretariat had 
not yet been completed. In the meantime, the United Kingdom Gov- 
ernment was" prepared to grant diplomatic immunities and privileges 
to the non-British senior staff of the Secretariat of the Council 
Deputies. The Secretary was requested to notify the Foreign Office 
of the names of the persons concerned, after consultation with the 



2 This appeared as D-D (51) 58 (1 March 1951). 



53 

Chairman. When the convention came into force those persons 
would, of course, be subject to the regulations laid down by that con- 
vention. In addition the United Kingdom Government trusted that 
members of the Secretariat, when travelling in the member coun- 
tries, would be granted diplomatic immunities and privileges during 
their visits. 

56. The Council Deputies : 

(1) Took note of the statement by the United Kingdom Deputy ; 

(2) Instructed the Secretary to inform the Foreign Office of the 
names of the senior staff concerned. 

D-R(51) 3 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 15 Janu- 
ary 1951 



VI. Status of the NATO Integrated Force. 

42. The Chairman pointed out that it would be necessary to draw 
up a multilateral convention to which all members of the North At- 
lantic Treaty Organization would be a party, covering the status of 
members of the integrated force. In his capacity as United States 
Deputy he would be prepared to circulate a memorandum 1 which 
might serve as a basis for discussion. The points to be covered by 
any convention were numerous and complicated, and he suggested 
that a special Working Group should be set up, consisting of legal 
experts nominated by each Government who wished to be represented, 
who would be charged with the task of preparing a draft convention. 
These legal experts would require advice from military and other 
experts on certain issues. 

43. The United Kingdom Deputy, while welcoming the idea of a 
multilateral convention, pointed out that a similar agreement had 
already been reached between the Western Union powers. As this 
Agreement, which had been published as Cmd. 7868, already had the 
approval of five of the twelve NATO powers, the preparation of the 
multilateral convention might be considerably expedited if this 
Agreement could be taken as a basis for discussion. 

44. The Council Deputies: 

(1) Agreed to constitute a Working Group consisting of legal 
experts nominated by the individual countries to draw up a 

i Distributed as D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). 



54 



draft multilateral convention governing the status of mem- 
bers of the NATO integrated force. 

(2) Agreed to nominate the individual representatives not later 
than Monday, 22 January 1951. 

(3) Agreed that the Western Union Agreement (Cmd. 7868 ), 2 
together with the memorandum which the Chairman had 
undertaken to circulate, should both be transmitted to the 
Working Group as bases for discussion. 



MS-R(51) 1 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
29 January 1951 

/. Opening of the Conference — Chairmanship. 

1. The meeting was opened by His Excellency, Count E. Re vent- 
low, Vice-Chairman of the Council Deputies, who welcomed the 
delegations and invited the Working Group to proceed to the election 
of its Chairman. 

2. On the proposal of the French Delegation, which was seconded 
by the Delegations of the United States and Italy, Mr. G. W. Lam- 
bert 1 was unanimously elected Chairman of the Working Group. 

3. The Working Group agreed that no interpretation would be re- 
quired at plenary meetings. This decision might however be altered 
in the case of technical discussions, if one of the representatives so 
desired. 

//. Preliminary Question: Application of the Agreement in the 
Event of War. 

4. The Chairman stated that two documents had been submitted to 
the Working Group as a basis for its work : the Status of the Armed 



2 Agreement Relative to the Status of Members of the Armed Forces of the 
Brussels Treaty Powers, entered into at Brussels on 21 December 1949, by 
Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. It is 
variously referred to in the course of the present negotiations as the "Western 
Union Agreement" or the "Brussels Status Agreement." It served as the basis 
for the draft Agreement on the Status of NATO Forces found in D-D (51) 23 
(23 January 1951). For a comparison of the Brussels Agreement with the 
NATO draft, see MS-D(51) 1 (30 January 1951). 

i United Kingdom Representative. 



55 

Forces of the Brussels Treaty Powers 2 and a draft submitted by 
the United States Delegation. 3 

5. Before proceeding to the study of these documents, 4 the Chair- 
man considered the possibilities of extending the Agreement to time 
of war. The Status of the Armed Forces of the Brussels Treaty 
Powers was only applicable in time of peace and provided in Article 
17 that the Agreement could be suspended in the event of any Party 
being involved in a war. The Chairman raised the question whether, 
instead of considering the preparation of a similar document, it 
would not be preferable to proceed immediately to the discussion of 
provisions applying also to time of war. To this end, agreement 
should be reached on the principle in order to give precise instruct- 
ions to the committee of experts. Referring to the United States 
draft, the Chairman drew attention to the fact that paragraph 10 of 
Article VI and Article XIV laid down special procedure in the event 
of war. Provision should perhaps be made in each article of the final 
document for procedure in the event of war. 

6. This distinction between time of war and time of peace would 
call for a definition of the state of war. The Chairman pointed out 
that in Article XIV of the United States draft the word "hostilities" 
was used, whereas the word "war" appeared in Article 17 of the 
Brussels Status Agreement. 

7. The United States Representative remarked that the United 
States draft had intentionally departed from the terminology used 
in the Agreement concluded by the Brussels Treaty Powers. The 
participating countries should adopt a common definition of these 
two terms. 

8. On the Chairman's proposal, the Working Group agreed to 
invite the technical subcommittees to : 

(a) prepare a draft text laying down procedure in time of peace; 

(b) study separately what should be done in time of war. In 
many cases, the same procedure could probably be adopted 
in both eventualities. 



2 Cmd. 7868, reproduced at page 331, infra. 

3 D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). 

4 Articles in the United States draft, D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951), are 
designated by Roman numerals, while those in the Brussels Status Agreement 
bear Arabic numerals. Unless otherwise indicated, references in the Summary 
Records and Documents are to the United States draft and its revisions. Am- 
biguous references are clarified by the designation "NATO" in parentheses to 
designate the United States draft, and by the words "Brussels Status" in 
parentheses to indicate the Brussels Treaty Status. 



56 

III. Organization of the Conference — Formation of Technical Sub- 
committees. 

9. The two documents referred to in paragraph 4 above, which had 
been submitted to the Working Group, dealt with a large number 
of very different problems: it would therefore be necessary at the 
first meeting to give detailed consideration to the procedure to be 
followed in future discussions. 

10. With this end in view, the Chairman said that the following 
subcommittees could be formed : 5 

(a) a Financial Subcommittee charged with questions relating 
to the distribution of financial burdens arising out of claims, 
for example; 

(b) a Juridical Subcommittee, charged with questions relating 
to the supervision of personnel and vehicles, the carriage of 
arms, immigration, etc. 

(c) a Fiscal Subcommittee, charged with questions relating to 
income-tax exemption, entry duties, death duties, etc. 

(d) a Military Subcommittee — if it was shown to be necessary — 
charged with questions relating to the control of troop move- 
ments, the wearing of uniforms, etc. 

(e) lastly, at the final stage, various questions relating purely 
to form would have to be studied : instruments of ratifica- 
tion, the first and last paragraphs of the draft Agreement, 
etc. These questions might be dealt with by a special sub- 
committee dependent on the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. 

11. Moreover, in the interests of speed, it would be desirable to 
keep the number of representatives at each of the subcommittees as 
small as possible. It might perhaps be arranged that one delegate 
should represent several countries. 

12. The United States Representative did not share this opinion: 
he thought that all countries should be consulted on every question. 
He therefore wondered whether it was advisable to subdivide the 
Working Group into subcommittees. In his opinion, it would be 
preferable if each question were the subject of a preliminary ex- 
change of views in plenary session, following which a drafting com- 
mittee — composed of two or three members — would be charged with 
preparing a text; this text would be submitted for approval to the 
Working Group. 

13. The Belgian Representative proposed that all questions should 



5 Summary Records of the Financial Subcommittee are contained in MS(F)- 
R(51) 1-6 (13-16 February 1951), and those of the Juridical Subcommittee in 
MS(J)-R(51) 1-9 (8-23 February 1951). The other subcommittees here pro- 
posed seem never to have been formed. 



57 

be considered by the Working Group composed of the twelve delega- 
tions, as the United States Representative had suggested, either in 
order to hold a preliminary exchange of views or to approve the text 
prepared by the drafting committees; he hoped however that the 
questions would be dealt with under the two headings of "juridical" 
and "financial," in order that those delegations who had the benefit 
of the presence of juridical and financial experts could delegate one 
or other of their experts to study those questions in the subcom- 
mittees. 

14. In the opinion of the French Representative, the Working 
Group, before embarking on the consideration of the juridical or 
financial questions, should come to a decision on the general ques- 
tions, such as "definitions" and "general principles," on which the 
Agreement would be based. After this first stage, it would be pos- 
sible to divide the articles to be discussed into two groups: juridical 
and financial. 6 

15. On the Chairman's proposal, the Working Group agreed : 

(1) to devote the second plenary meeting, to be held on 29 Jan- 
uary 1951, to the first questions of a general nature — Article 
I (United States draft) and Article 1 (Brussels Status). 

(2) to resume discussion on questions of procedure, after this 
first exchange of views. 

16. The Icelandic Representative drew the attention of the Work- 
ing Group to the special position of his country and expressed the 
wish that it should be taken into account when preparing the Status. 
As Iceland had no military force, it could only be a "receiving State" 
and for that reason could not benefit from the reciprocity existing 
among the other countries which were, according to circumstances, 
either a "receiving State" or a "sending State." Because of the small 
size of the population in Iceland, the presence on its territory of for- 
eign armed forces would affect internal conditions more than would 
be the case in the other countries. 

MS-R(51) 2 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
29 January 1951 

/. Consideration of Article I of the Draft Agreement. 1 

1. The Chairman proposed that the Working Group should con- 

6 See MS-D(51) 1 (30 January 1951). 

i References: D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951) for the United States draft; 
Cmd. 7868 (21 December 1949) for the Brussels Treaty Status. 



58 

sider Article I of the draft prepared by the United States Delega- 
tion, comparing it with Article 1 of the Status of the Armed Forces 
of the Brussels Treaty Powers. 

2. The text submitted by the United States Delegation used the 
word "contingent," whereas the term "foreign force" appeared in the 
Status of the Brussels Treaty Powers. These two terms were defined 
in different ways; "contingent" included civilian personnel accom- 
panying the forces, in addition to military personnel. The United 
Kingdom would find it difficult to extend the Agreement to apply to 
civilian personnel, for British military law only applied to civilians 
accompanying forces in the event of hostilities. In time of peace, 
therefore, civilians in this position were not subject to military 
jurisdiction. 

3. The United States Representative stated that the definition of 
the term "contingent" arose out of United States military legislation, 
which assimilated certain categories of civilians to the military per- 
sonnel; military legislation applied to them, even in time of peace, 
outside the national territory and certain territories under United 
States control. 

4. Military law applied to the following categories of persons : 2 

(10) In time of war, all persons serving with or accompanying 
an armed force in the field ; 

(11) Subject to the provisions of any treaty or agreement to 
which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted 
rule of international law, all persons serving with, employed by, 
or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits 
of the United States and without the following territories: That 
part of Alaska east of longitude one hundred and seventy-two 
degrees west, the Canal Zone, the main group of the Hawaiian 
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; 

(12) Subject to the provisions of any treaty or agreement to 
which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted 
rule of international law, all persons within an area leased by or 
otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States 
which is under the control of the Secretary of a Department and 
which is without the continental limits of the United States and 
without the following territories: That part of Alaska east of 
longitude one hundred and seventy-two degrees west, the Canal 
Zone, the main group of the Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico, and 
the Virgin Islands. 

5. The Chairman ascertained, on the basis of statements made by 
each representative, that military law in the majority of the member 

2 Uniform Code of Military Justice, Art. 2; 10 U.S.C. §802 (1958 ed.) 



59 

countries showed a certain similarity insofar as it applied to civilians 
in time of peace; civilians were not normally subject to military law 
in time of peace except in certain cases when they accompanied the 
armed forces outside the national territory. 

6. Moreover, the Chairman recalled that the definition given in the 
Brussels Treaty Status of the "foreign force" did not envisage the 
presence of civilians under any circumstances, even when the foreign 
force was maintained on duty in the territory of one of the Contract- 
ing Parties, other than the territory of the sending State. 

7. It would therefore appear inadvisable to extend the definition 
of "contingent" to include civilians accompanying the foreign force. 
To do so would be to run the risk of giving ri^e, not only to juridical 
inequalities, but also to material inequalities as the civilians accom- 
panying certain forces might not enjoy the same advantages as those 
belonging to other forces. 

8. The United States Representative proposed that the reference 
to military law should be deleted in his draft and that the text should 
lay down that the Status would apply to all persons serving with, 
employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the territory 
of the sending State. 

9. The French Representative considered that it was necessary to 
adopt a single definition applying to all countries, which would not 
accentuate the diiference between the various military codes. This 
definition should therefore be established without referring to a law 
which varied from one country to another. On the other hand, the 
civilians accompanying military forces could not be ignored and their 
status should be defined in some way. In the opinion of the French 
Representative, the definition proposed by the United States Repre- 
sentative was too vague : the word "accompanying" called for a more 
specific definition. 

10. The United States Representative considered that the word 
"accompanying" could be deleted, since the civilians in question were 
accompanying the military forces "in the execution of orders" and, 
for this reason, they could be regarded as serving with the military 
forces or employed by them. 

11. The United Kingdom Representative was not in a position to 
accept the United States proposal; the Brussels Treaty Status did 
not apply to civilians; moreover, civilians at present accompanying 
United States forces in the United Kingdom did not enjoy the same 
status as the armed forces. It would therefore appear desirable to 
exclude all civilians from the definition of the word "contingent," at 
least in time of peace; the question would have to be reconsidered to 
provide for time of war. The United Kingdom Representative could 



60 

take no final decision at the present stage and would seek further 
instructions in this matter. 

12. The Italian Representative also desired to exclude civilian per- 
sonnel from the definition and would be in favor of adopting the 
text of the Brussels Treaty Status. In Italy, civilians attached to the 
army were subject to military law only in time of war and in that 
event they could be regarded as "militarized." In time of peace, 
civilians were subject to civil law; nevertheless, if they followed the 
army outside the national territory, they were regarded as "militar- 
ized" and subject to military law. In view of the difficulties encoun- 
tered by the various delegations in adopting one common definition 
of the term "contingent," he considered that it would be preferable 
to confine the definition to the armed forces. 

13. The Chairman concluded that the great majority of delegations 
were in favor of excluding civilians from the definition of "contin- 
gent," at least in time of peace. It would however appear advisable 
to envisage a separate Status, which would apply to certain classes 
of civilians in liaison with the armed forces. 

//. Organization of the Conference. 

14. On the Chairman's proposal, the Working Group : 

(1) Agreed to postpone the discussion on organizational ques- 
tions to the following meeting, which would take place on 
Tuesday, 30 January 1951. 

(2) Instructed the Secretary to prepare a working paper 3 deal- 
ing with the two following questions: 

(i) the regrouping of the articles by subjects (juridical, fi- 
nancial, etc.) ; 

(ii) a comparison between the Status of the Armed Forces of 
the Brussels Treaty Powers and the draft submitted by 
the United States Delegation. 

MS-R(51) 3 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
30 January 1951 

/. Canadian Military Law. 

1. Kef erring to the exchange of views at the second meeting of 
the Working Group, the Canadian Kepresentative stated that Cana- 
dian military law applied to certain civilians, namely those who 
accompanied the Canadian forces in active duty, wherever they might 

3MS-D(51) 1 (30 January 1951). 



61 

be stationed. Nevertheless, military law did not affect the compe- 
tence of the civil courts in respect of any offense falling within their 
jurisdiction. Canadian military law also provided that the military 
courts would be competent in respect of any offense against the civil 
code which would have been punishable if it had been committed in 
Canadian territory. In conclusion, the military law which was in 
force in Canada resembled United States military law. 

//. Organization 

2. The Chairman proposed that the Working Group should rap- 
idly review the articles appearing in the draft submitted by the 
United States Delegation, in order to regroup them under separate 
headings. He proposed that those headings should be restricted to 
three groups — juridical, financial, and treaty points. Articles I to VI 
fell under the heading of "juridical"; Articles VII to XIII under 
the heading of "fiinancial" ; the others related to the implementation 
of the Agreement and should not be studied until a later stage. 

3. The Chairman proposed that the Brussels Treaty Status should 
be taken as a working basis. It would be helpful if each delegation 
would make known its Government's views on this matter. It would 
perhaps be possible for all the Powers which were not signatory to 
the Brussels Treaty to accept that Status in broad outline. It was 
suggested that the Working Group should suspend its discussions 
for approximately one week. 

4. Although he had not yet received instructions from his Govern- 
ment, the Icelandic Kepresentative believed that neither the draft 
prepared by the United States Delegation nor the Brussels Treaty 
Status would be acceptable to his Government. They would no doubt 
favor a special agreement regarding the services which Iceland could 
render to foreign forces stationed on her territory. 

5. The Working Group : 

(1) Noted that the majority of delegations were prepared to 
take the Brussels Treaty Status as a practical working basis. 

(2) Invited the various Governments to make known their views 
on that text. 

(3) Agreed to submit the first six articles of the draft prepared 
by the United States Delegation to a subcommittee com- 
posed of juridical experts. The Delegations of Belgium, 
Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, the United King- 
dom and the United States undertook to send representa- 
tives. The Delegations of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and 
Portugal reserved the right to be represented on the sub- 
committee at a later date. 



62 

777. Consideration of the Draft on Status. 1 

6. The Chairman proposed that the Working Group should pro- 
ceed to a first consideration of the first six articles, which could be 
regarded as having a more specifically juridical character. In the 
course of the exchange of views, the following comments were made. 



Article II, par. 1. 

7. — (a) The words "subject to procedures established by the re- 
ceiving State relating to entry and departure" did not appear in 
the original text of the Brussels Treaty Status (Article 3, par. 1). 
As this word gave rise to no special question of substance, it was 
agreed that it should be amended at a later date; the reference to 
paragraph 2 which appeared in the first line would no doubt be 
sufficient. 

(b) "And immigration inspection." The inclusion of these terms 
in the Status would dispense foreign armed forces from immigration 
formalities which were usually very complicated. This wording was 
included in the United States draft in order to avoid the very lengthy 
procedure which would be necessary if the law were to be amended 
by Congress. This exception to immigration legislation explained the 
presence of the last clause concerning the acquisition of "any rights 
of permanent residence or domicile in the territories of the receiving 
State." 

Article 2, par. 1 (Brussels Status). 

8. It was noted that the new draft submitted by the United States 
Delegation removed the distinction between "personnel on perma- 
nent duty" and "personnel on temporary duty" (Article 2, par. 1, 
of the Brussels Treaty Status) in the interests of simplicity. It did 
not seem advisable to provide, as in the Brussels Treaty Status, that 
the Secretariat-General should be charged with keeping up to date 
a nominal roll of permanent personnel. 

Article II, par. 2. 

9. It was agreed to leave the discussion on the form of the identity 
card and movement order to the Juridical Subcommittee. 



i Reference: D-D(51) 23 (23 January 1951) for United States draft; Cmd. 
7868 (21 December 1949) for the Brussels Treaty Status. 



63 

Article III. 

10. — (a) Article 4 of the Brussels Treaty Status, which dealt with 
the same problem, did not apply to civilians. It was agreed that this 
question, which raised the special case of dependents, would be con- 
sidered in the course of the discussion on the status of civilians in 
general. 

(b) "The sending State or sub-division thereof." This term re- 
ferred to the various States of the United States which had different 
legislations regarding driving licenses. It was therefore advisable 
that the Agreement should provide for any exception to those legisla- 
tions, to avoid the necessity of amending the legislative text itself. 



Article IV, par. 1 

11. "Members of regularly constituted military units and forma- 
tions." The new specifications appearing in the United States draft 
with respect of Article 5, par. 1, of the Brussels Treaty Status, took 
into account the possible existence of civilian personnel. This ques- 
tion would have to be considered during the general discussion on 
civilians. 



Article IV, par. 2 

12. The Working Group agreed that they would consider the possi- 
bility of transferring this paragraph to Article III. 



Article V 

13. This Article dealt with the same subject as Article 6 of the 
Brussels Treaty Status but did not repeat paragraph 1 of that Arti- 
cle, which provided that the possession and carrying of arms by mem- 
bers of a foreign force shall be subject to the same laws and regula- 
tions as were applied to the forces of the receiving State. In order 
to avoid any possibility of confusion in this matter, it was proposed 
that the wording of the United States draft should be amended by 
stipulating that paragraph 1 of Article V of the draft should be 
restricted to the carriage of arms when under orders; this would 
make it possible to apply the regulations in force to members of a 
foreign force when they were not on duty. 



64 

MS-R(51) 4 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
31 January 1951 

/. Consideration of Article VI of the Draft. 1 

1. Commenting on Article VI of the draft prepared by his Dele- 
gation, the United States Representative drew the attention of the 
Working Group to the following points. Article VI was based on 
the principle that the jurisdiction of the receiving State applied to 
"foreign forces and civilian personnel," hereafter described by the 
term "contingents." This principle, on which the United States draft 
was based, differed from international law, which provided that — in 
the absence of any special agreement — the sending State retained the 
right of jurisdiction over its forces stationed outside the national 
territory. The international law on the subject was largely inspired 
by the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in the case of The Schooner 
Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (U.S. 1812). 

2. Although the draft prepared by the United States Delegation 
was based as a whole on the principle of the right of the courts of 
the receiving State to exercise jurisdiction over the "contingents," 
certain exceptions were laid down in the United States draft. The 
United States Representative began by pointing out two exceptions 
which were probably beyond dispute : 

(a) Article VI, par. 5, corresponding to Article 7, par. 2 (last 
paragraph) of the Brussels Treaty Status, stated that the 
military authorities of the sending State shall have, within 
the receiving State, any jurisdiction and control conferred 
upon them by the law of the sending State in relation to an 
offense committed by a member of their own armed forces; 
and 

(b) Article VI, par. 2(b) and (c), corresponding to Article 7, 
par. 2 (third paragraph) of the Brussels Treaty Status, 
stated that the military courts of the sending State shall 
have jurisdiction in the case of offenses committed against 
the law of the sending State, when such offenses were not 
punishable by the laws of the receiving State. Such offenses 
could only be punishable by the competent military author- 
ities of the sending State. 

3. The United States Representative went on to consider various 
cases which were not covered by the Brussels Agreement or which 
departed from that text : 



i Reference: D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951) for the United States draft; 
Cmd. 7868 (21 December 1949) for the Brussels Treaty Status. 



65 

(a) Criminal jurisdiction in time of war 

Article VI, par. 10, provided that in time of war the sending 
State shall exercise sole jurisdiction in the case of offenses com- 
mitted by members of its "contingents." This had a purely prac- 
tical purpose: in time of war it would be inadvisable that mem- 
bers of the force or assimilated personnel should be withdrawn 
from the control of their military authorities by reason of their 
subjection to the jurisdiction of the receiving State. The assump- 
tion of paragraph 10 did not appear in the Brussels Agreement, 
since the latter did not provide for time of war. 

(b) Criminal jurisdiction in time of peace 

The draft provides that the courts of the receiving State normally 
exercise jurisdiction. The United States draft however laid down 
two exceptions : 

(i) Article VI, par. 2(d). An offense against the laws of the 
receiving State arising out of any act done "in the per- 
formance of official duty" by a member of a "contingent" 
or pursuant to a lawful order issued by competent author- 
ity. Very few categories of this type would arise; exam- 
ples would be sentinels using unnecessary force when on 
duty, or automobile accidents of drivers proceeding on 
official duty. 

(ii) Article VI, par. 2(a). An offense committed against one 
member of a "contingent" or his dependents by another 
member of the same "contingent." 

4. A number of paragraphs of the United States draft, in par- 
ticular par. 1, 3 and 4 of Article VI, developed the right of jurisdic- 
tion of the courts of the receiving State, which appeared in Article 7, 
par. 1-2 of the Brussels Agreement. Paragraph 4 of the United 
States draft, however, provided certain safeguards, in conformity 
with the procedure followed in the United States ; it might be neces- 
sary to amend those safeguards, in order to bring them into line with 
the practice in other countries. For example, Article VI, par. 4(g), 
provided that the member of a contingent shall be entitled to have a 
representative of the Government of the sending State present at any 
stage of the detention and trial, in particular at the examination 
before trial ; this might be incompatible with the penal code in force 
in one or other of the member countries, when such examination must 
be private. 

(c) Civil jurisdiction 

4a. Turning to the problem of civil jurisdiction, the United States 
Representative pointed out that Article VI, par. 6, provided that the 



6$ 

courts of the receiving State shall exercise jurisdiction, with the sole 
exception of matters arising from the performance of official duties. 

5. The Chairman thanked the United States Representative for his 
statement. He stressed that, when this Article was under considera- 
tion by the Juridical Subcommittee, it would be of advantage if 
problems of procedure were studied from the most practical stand- 
point, in the endeavor to lay down rules which could be applied as 
easily as possible. It was necessary that the final text should be 
easily understood by local police officials and give clear and precise 
instructions. 

6. The French Representative referred to Article VI, par. 10, of 
the United States draft. It was no doubt advisable to give imme- 
diate considerations to procedure to apply in time of war, but it 
would not be desirable to extend the present Status to cover time 
of war, which should be the subject of a separate document receiving 
less publicity than the document covering time of peace. 

7. The Italian Representative emphasized that, although it was 
necessary to lay down practical instructions as the United Kingdom 
Representative had proposed, the Working Group should first give 
its attention to a question of principle — the conflict between the sov- 
ereignty of the receiving and sending States. 

8. The Working Group agreed to refer Article VI for study to the 
Juridical Subcommittee. 

//. Consideration of Article VII-XIII. 

9. The Chairman proposed to proceed to the preliminary consid- 
eration of Articles VII-XIII, which dealt primarily with financial 
questions. 

10. Referring to Article VII, the Chairman drew the attention of 
the Working Group to the wording of paragraph 1, which made the 
receiving State responsible for paying compensation with respect to 
claims for damage caused in its territory, leaving to a later stage 
the distribution among the twelve member countries. The applica- 
tion of this principle might give rise to special difficulties. It would 
therefore be necessary for the Financial Subcommittee to study this 
question in greater detail. 

11. The United States Representative pointed out that Article VII, 
par. 1, was the logical complement of Article VI, par. 6, which pro- 
vided that members of a contingent shall be immune from the civil 
jurisdiction of the receiving State. It would therefore be the normal 
corollary to lay down procedure for compensation to ensure that 
damage should not be caused without being covered by compensation. 

12. In reply to a question, the United States Representative stated 



67 

that the expression "incident to non-combatant duties" signified ac- 
tivities in time of peace. The distinction between "time of peace" 
and "time of war" should be the subject of an exchange of views. 

13. The Chairman pointed out that the United States proposal did 
not cover damage caused by acts not relating to the performance of 
official duties. Article 8, par. 4, 6 and 7, and Articles 9 and 10 of the 
Brussels Treaty Status were not repeated in the United States draft. 

14. The United States Representative said that, in the case of 
damage caused by acts not relating to the performance of official 
duties, it was the normal procedure of the receiving State which ap- 
plied. He admitted, however, that his draft did not lay down the 
procedure to be followed when investigating claims. 

15. The Italian Representative commented that the draft submitted 
by the United States Delegation differed considerably from the Brus- 
sels Treaty Status. The draft provided that the claim would be met 
by the receiving State, although it would be subject to subsequent 
distribution among the North Atlantic Treaty countries. He was 
obliged to reserve His Government's view on this draft. 

16. The Chairman, summing up the discussion, concluded that the 
majority of delegations agreed to the procedure governing the sub- 
mission of claims which was laid down in the draft. The general 
opinion appeared to be, however, that judgment should be reserved 
on the United States proposal relating to the settlement of claims. 

17. The United States Representative proposed that this question 
should be studied at a later date, in order not to delay the prepara- 
tion of the final draft dealing with all the other questions, which 
could be more easily solved. 

18. With regard to Articles VIII, IX and X, the Chairman com- 
mented that the only important respect in which they departed from 
the corresponding articles of the Brussels Treaty Status was the 
mention of dependents, who enjoyed the same privileges as the "con- 
tingents." This question also should be the subject of an exchange 
of views when the status reserved for civilians was under consid- 
eration. 

///. Organization of the Conference. 

19. The Working Group agreed : 

(1) to call a meeting of the Juridical Subcommittee to consider 
Articles I-IV on Thursday, 8 February 1951 ; 2 

(2) to call a meeting of the Financial Subcommittee to consider 
Articles VII-XIII on Tuesday, 13 February 1951. 3 

2 For the records of the Juridical Subcommittee, see MS(J)-R(51) 1-9 (8-23 
February 1951). 

3 For the records of the Financial Subcommittee, see MS(F)-R(51) 1-6 
(13-16 February 1951). 



68 

MS(F)-R(51) 1 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Financial Subcommittee), 13 February 1951 

/. Article I — Definitions. 1 

1. Before opening the discussion on the redraft of Article VII sub- 
mitted by the United States Delegation, the Chairman 2 drew the 
attention of the Working Group to the new wording of the first 
six articles which had been circulated as MS-D(51) 5, for the prep- 
aration of which he desired to thank the United States representa- 
tive in particular. 

2. Article I contained a list of new definitions, in particular of 
the following terms : 

"force": strictly military personnel, belonging to the land, sea 
or air armed services when they were serving in the territory of 
another Contracting Party; in practice this limited the definition 
to personnel entitled to wear uniform ; 

"civilian component" : a limited category of civilians, namely, 
those employed by the forces ; this definition excluded civilians who 
were, nationals of the receiving State or residents in the territory 
of that State, and their dependents. 

These definitions would be used in the course of the discussions on 
Article VII, which was on the agenda for the present meeting. 

77. Consideration of Article VII. 3 



Article VII, par. 1 

3. It emerged from the discussion on Article VII, par. 1, that there 
was a considerable divergence of views on the interpretation of 
Article 8 of the Western Union Agreement, which a number of Rep- 
resentatives considered to have a narrower application than the provi- 



i Reference: MS-D(51) 5 (12 February 1951). 

2 Mr. G. W. Lambert, United Kingdom Representative, served as Chairman for 
all six meetings of the Financial Subcommittee, MS(F)-R(51) 1-6 (13- 
16 February 1951 ) . 

3 Reference: MS-D(51) 4(R) (12 February 1951). An earlier revision of the 
Article on claims, MS-D(51) 4 (9 February) was superseded by MS-D(51) 
4(R) and hence was never considered by the Financial Subcommittee or the 



69 

sions of the redraft of Article VII. This was particularly the case 
with respect to the following points : 

(a) The first paragraph of the redraft lays down the general 
principle that the Contracting Parties waive claims for 
damages to any property owned by a member State, whereas 
the corresponding Article of the Western Union Agreement 
(Article 8, par. 2) is only an exception to the principle of 
the payment of compensation for damages to a third party 
(Article 8, par. 2) . In the case of vessels, the Western Union 
Agreement accordingly provides no waiver of claims for 
damages to the property of one of the member States, but 
it specifies that the claims shall be brought against the State 
to which the vessels belong; this makes it possible to avoid 
the application of common law which might include seizure. 

(b) Is it necessary to restrict the application of this Article to 
accidents occurring in the territory of one of the Contract- 
ing Parties, as provided in the preambles of the Western 
Union Agreement and the draft submitted by the United 
States Representative, or would it be preferable to state 
that this provision applies wherever the accident takes 
place? 

(c) The Western Union Agreement only takes account of acci- 
dents occurring in the execution of the provisions of the 
Brussels Treaty, whereas the draft Agreement nowhere spe- 
cifies a similar restriction. 

4. The Subcommittee : 

(1) took note of the divergent interpretations given to the text 
of the Western Union Agreement (Article 8) by the various 
delegations ; 

(2) agreed, in view of the nature of the divergencies, to refer 
the question of the principle of the mutual waiver of certain 
claims to the Juridical Subcommittee, drawing its attention 
to the important financial consequences which might arise 
from extending the application of the provisions of this 
Article. 

5. In the course of discussion, certain points were nevertheless 
clarified with respect to the significance of the redraft of Article VII, 
par. 1. In particular, it was recognized that the phrase "owned by 
such Contracting Party and used by its Service Ministries (land, sea 
or air armed services)" signified that the provision in question ap- 
plied only to the property which was both owned by one of the 

Working Group. For the corresponding article (Article 8) of the Brussels 
Treaty Status (Western Union Agreement), see Cmd. 7868 (21 December 1949). 



70 

Contracting Parties and used by the land, sea or air armed services. 
A definition of this kind excluded the case of vessels chartered, but 
not owned, by the State. 

6. At the request of the Norwegian Representative, it was pro- 
posed that paragraph 1 should include a provision similar to that 
appearing in paragraph 2, restricting the application of the provi- 
sion to damage caused while in the performance of official duties. 

7. The Subcommittee : 

(3) took note that the problem of maritime damages raised the 
following questions : 

(i) the application of the Agreement outside territories con- 
trolled by NATO member countries; 

(ii) the restriction of the Agreement to damages caused while 
in the execution of the provisions of the North Atlantic 
Treaty ; 

(4) agreed to refer Article VII, par. 1, to the Juridical Sub- 
committee. 

Article VII, par. 2 

8. Paragraph 2 provided that the member States would waive all 
claims for injury or death suffered by any member of their armed 
forces while in the performance of his official duties. Like paragraph 
1, paragraph 2 was restricted to relations between States, and there- 
fore the phrase "or any member of its armed services" would be 
omitted from the final text. It was noted that actions against in- 
dividuals belonging to an armed force were the subject of paragraph 
4 of the same Article. 

9. On the proposal of the Norwegian Representative, it was agreed 
to amend the wording of paragraph 2 to bring it into line with the 
previous paragraph, and it would therefore begin as follows: "Each 
Contracting Party waives all claims arising from injury or death 
suffered by any member of the armed services of any Contracting 
Party while in the performance of his official duties." 

10. The Subcommittee : 

(1) agreed to amend the wording of Article VII, par. 1, in con- 
formity with the above comments ; 

(2) agreed to refer Article VII, par. 2, to the Juridical Sub- 
committee. 

Article VII, par. 3 

11. Paragraph 3 dealt with civil actions brought against a mem- 
ber of an armed force or its civilian component. In view of the fact 
that the first two paragraphs were restricted to problems arising 



71 

between States, it was proposed that the following words should be 
deleted from the beginning of the first sentence: "Subject to the 
provisions of the two preceding paragraphs." 
12. The Subcommittee : 

(7) agreed to amend Article VII, par. 3, in conformity with 
the above comments ; 

(8) agreed to refer Article VII, par. 3, to the Juridical Sub- 
committee. 

MS(F)-R(51) 2 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Financial Subcommittee), 13 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Article VIII. 1 

1. Before embarking on the discussion, paragraph by paragraph, 
of Article VIII, the Chairman pointed out that the new definitions 
of the terms "force" and "civilian component" should be borne in 
mind. He therefore requested the delegations to correct the text of 
Article VIII accordingly. Wherever the word "contingent" appeared, 
it should be replaced by "force and civilian component." 

Article VIII, par. 1 

2. Paragraph 1 applied not only to members of forces and civilian 
components, but also to their dependents. Such members of the force, 
the civilian component, or their dependents would be subject to the 
same conditions as the similar categories of nationals of the receiving 
State. 

Article VIII, par. 2 

3. Paragraph 2 applied to bulk purchases for the use of the forces 
and civilian components of the sending State. It was proposed that 
the words "government personnel" should be replaced by "personnel 
of the armed services." 

Article VIII, par. 3 

4. In the course of discussion on paragraph 3, which relates to the 
accommodation of forces on the territory of the receiving State, the 
following comments were made : 

i Reference: D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). The discussion was in terms, 
however, of the new definitions contained in Article I of MS-D(51) 5 (12 Febru- 
ary 1951). 



72 

(a) The phrase "as well as such other facilities and services as 
it requires" should be interpreted as signifying only the 
facilities of the buildings placed at the disposal of the 
forces, such as water, gas, electricity, etc. In order to avoid 
all risk of confusion, it was agreed that the phrase in ques- 
tion should be replaced by: "as well as such facilities and 
services connected therewith." 

(b) The expression "competent authorities" had been translated 
by "les autorites militaires competentes." It was agreed to 
delete the word "militaires," which did not appear in the 
English text. 

(c) The redraft differed from Article 11, par. 3, of the Western 
Union Agreement, in that it did not cover the billeting of 
military personnel and was restricted to their accommoda- 
tion. It was agreed that the word "billeting" should be re- 
placed in the draft. This amendment was necessary on 
account of the fact that in France, for example, billeting 
orders were used in time of peace, but accommodation was 
not requisitioned. 

(d) The last sentence of paragraph 3 of the draft differed from 
the last sentence of Article 11, par. 3, of the Western Union 
Agreement; the latter had been worded with a view to pro- 
tecting the rights of the owner rather than those of the occu- 
pant. It was proposed that this question should be brought 
to the notice of the Juridical Subcommittee. 

Article VIII, par. 4 

5. In the course of the discussion on paragraph 4, concerning the 
use of local civilian labor, two questions were raised by the Nether- 
lands Representative : 

(a) Was a force authorized to recruit the local labor of the re- 
ceiving State and to transfer such workers to the territory 
of another receiving State? 

(b) What conditions would be contained in the employment con- 
tract in that event, and what status would these foreign 
workers have on the territory of the receiving State? 

As these special cases did not fall within the scope of this Agree- 
ment, it was agreed that they should not be considered. 

Article VIII, par. 5 

6. In reply to a question raised by the Norwegian Representative, 
the Chairman interpreted paragraph 5 as follows : the receiving State 



73 

could grant the members of a force and its civilian component the 
same facilities as those granted to the members of its own forces or 
to comparable civilians. This provision laid no obligation on it to 
do so, however. 

Article VIII, par. 6 

7. The French Representative pointed out that this paragraph did 
not imply that the forces of a sending State would enjoy the same 
travelling concessions on the French railways as members of the 
French armed forces. 

Article VIII, par. 8 

8. On the proposal of the French Representative, it was agreed to 
separate the last part of paragraph 8, beginning with the words 
"except goods imported," and to deal with this question under Arti- 
cle X. 

9. It was also agreed that the beginning of the paragraph should 
be amended in accordance with a proposal of the Netherlands Repre- 
sentative, and that the words "the members of a force or a civilian 
component" should be replaced by "a force or civilian component." 
This would mean that paragraph 8 would apply to the force as a 
whole, as well as to each of its members. 

10. The Subcommittee : 

(1) took note of the above comments ; 

(2) agreed to amend the text of Article VIII of the draft sub- 
mitted by the United States Representative, in accordance 
with the above comments ; 

(3) agreed to submit the last sentence of paragraph 3 of Article 
VIII to the Juridical Subcommittee, drawing its attention 
to the difference between this wording and the text of Article 
11, par. 3 (last sentence) of the Western Union Agreement. 

77. Consideration of Article IX. 2 

11. The Chairman proposed that Article IX should deal with fiscal 
questions arising in the case of members of forces, civilian compo- 
nents, and their dependents during their stay on the territory of the 
receiving State ; the points relating to entry into and departure from 
the receiving State would be dealt with under Article X. Paragraph 
1(b) should therefore be separated from Article IX. 

12. The Chairman invited the United States Representative to ex- 
plain the significance of the term "personal property taxes," appear- 
ing in paragraph 1(c). 

2 See note 1, supra. 



74 

13. The United States Representative said that the basis of the 
personal property tax was all property exclusive of real estate; it 
therefore included shares, bonds, government stocks, etc. 

14. It emerged from the discussion that the personal property tax 
was a tax on personal estate. The Chairman ascertained that similar 
taxes were imposed in a number o ' other countries. It was therefore 
agreed to amend the wording of paragraph 1(c), in order to cover 
the various cases which might arise. 

15. In connection with the last sentence of paragraph 1 (beginning 
with the words "In determining whether a person"), the following 
amendments were made : 

(a) The words "members of a contingent" were replaced by 
"personnel," thus extending the application of the para- 
graph. 

(b) In the English text, the words "of a member" were included 
after "employment." 

(c) This last sentence of paragraph 1 became paragraph 2. The 
following paragraphs were renumbered accordingly. 

16. As the Canadian Representatives had not yet received any in- 
structions on this point, he was obliged to reserve the view of his 
Government with respect to dependents. 

Article IX, par. 2 

IT. The Chairman pointed out that the extension of paragraph 
1(c) to cover the civilian component and dependents raised the ques- 
tion whether death duties were related to domicile or residence of 
the d e cujus. 

18. The Belgian Representative stated that in Belgium death 
duties were related to the residence and not the domicile. 

19. It was agreed that these points would be the subject of a dis- 
cussion in connection with income-tax questions. 

20. The Subcommittee : 

(4) agreed to introduce the above amendments into the redraft; 

(5) agreed to reconsider Article IX at a joint meeting with the 
fiscal experts. 

MS(F)-R(51) 3 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Financial Subcommittee), 14 February 1951 

Consideration of Article VII. 1 

1. Following the Chairman's statement on Article VII, para- 
graphs 3 and 4, the Subcommittee : 



i Reference: MS-D(51) 4(R) (12 February 1951) 



75 

(1) agreed to deal only with the questions within its competence, 
namely Article VII, paragraph 4(b), since the other para- 
graphs contained in that Article fall within the competence 
of the Juridical Subcommittee; 

(2) agreed to submit to the Juridical Subcommittee the proposal 
of the Netherlands Representative to the effect that the new 
text should cover contracts concluded by members of a for- 
eign force in the course of their duties, as is provided in 
Article 8, paragraph 7, of the Western Union Agreement. 

2. The Chairman drew the attention of the Subcommittee to the 
fact that the redraft of Article VII differed from the draft submitted 
by the United States Representative, in that paragraph 4(b) pro- 
vided that the sending State should contribute to the payment of 
compensation; bilateral negotiations might be entered into for this 
purpose whenever the cost incurred by the receiving State became 
unduly burdensome. The Chairman then requested the delegations 
to express their views on the draft submitted by the United States 
Delegation. 

3. The Belgian Representative could not support the draft sub- 
mitted by the United States Representative, since this draft provided 
that in the first instance the receiving State should bear the total 
financial burden arising out of the compensation, reserving to a later 
stage the final settlement of those expenses at the time of the dis- 
tribution of the overall financial burden with respect to the defense 
of the North Atlantic countries. The compensation thus paid by the 
receiving State would represent an installment of its contribution to 
the common defense burden. 

4. The reasons for which the Belgian Representative was unable 
to support the United States draft may be summarized as follows : 

(a) First, it must be borne in mind that the sending State would 
be induced to exercise stricter supervision over its nationals 
by the obligation to bear immediately a share of the com- 
pensation. 

(b) Secondly, in relation to the nationals of the receiving State, 
it is important that members of foreign forces should not be 
laid open to the accusation of frivolity, as a result of the 
financial system adopted. 

(c) Lastly, the compensation system proposed by the United 
States Delegation presupposes that the distribution of the 
burden will be carried out in purely financial terms and 
therefore prejudices the final procedure which should be 
adopted. The Belgian Government is not in favor of a dis- 
tribution of the common defense burden on a purely finan- 



76 

cial basis; it is desirable that this distribution should take 
into account concrete factors enabling the member countries 
to contribute to the common defense in other ways than by 
a financial contribution. 

5. The Chairman ascertained that the views expressed by the 
Belgian Representative were shared by the majority of the delega- 
tions ; it would appear that the draft submitted by the United States 
Delegation could not be adopted, either for psychological or for 
financial reasons. He invited the Representatives to put forward new 
proposals which they might have in mind. 

6. The French Representative made two alternative proposals: 

(a) The first, which was probably the more suitable of the two, 
consisted of an automatic distribution of the financial bur- 
den arising out of the settlement of claims on the basis of 
percentages previously decided by common agreement. This 
procedure resembled the one adopted by the Western Union 
Agreement. It was only provisional and in no way preju- 
diced the final distribution of the common defense burden 
as a whole. 

(b) The second proposal envisaged a distribution of the burden 
which would vary in each case; it would be carried out 
either on a bilateral basis, when the receiving and sending 
States were the only States involved — or on a multilateral 
basis, when several sending States were responsible: 

(i) in the first case, the receiving State would meet 25% of 

the burden, and the sending State 75% ; 
(ii) in the second case, the financial burden would be dis- 
tributed equally among the receiving State and the vari- 
ous sending States responsible. 
This procedure made provision for arbitration, in the event of dis- 
putes, which might be entrusted to SHAPE. 

7. The Netherlands Representative also made a proposal to be con- 
sidered if the French Delegation's suggestions were rejected. Its 
effect would be to lay upon the sending State the responsibility for 
meeting claims for all damages caused by members of its armed 
forces. 

8. The Subcommittee: 

(3) took note of the French and Netherlands proposals ; 

(4) agreed that the first French proposal would be the subject 
of informal conversations before being set out in a separate 
document ; 



77 

(5) instructed the Secretary to circulate the text of the second 
French proposal ; 2 

(6) agreed to reconsider the problem of the distribution of the 
financial burden after the meeting of the Working Group 
on the International Budget which would be held on 
19 February 1951 ; 

(7) agreed to consider the proposal put forward by the Nether- 
lands Delegation if no agreement were reached on one of 
the two previous proposals. 

9. The French Representative commented that the draft submitted 
by the United States Delegation made no reference to the case of 
damages to the property of a receiving State which was not used for 
military purposes. 

10. In the opinion of the United States Representative, damages of 
this kind should be the subject of bilateral negotiations, either be- 
tween the military authorities or through the usual diplomatic chan- 
nels. He agreed that no provision comparable to Article 8, par. 6, of 
the Western Union Agreement appeared in the draft. 

11. The Italian Representative expressed the view that this point 
should be raised in the Juridical Subcommittee and stated that he 
would make a proposal on the subject in that Subcommittee. 

12. The French Representative pointed out, however, that the 
financial aspects of this Article could be discussed immediately, and 
he suggested that two paragraphs should be included in Article VII 
as follows : 

In the case of damage to State property, which is not excluded 
by the provisions of paragraph 1 above and not covered by para- 
graph 2 above, the amount of the damage will be assessed by an 
arbitrator nominated by the receiving State, after consultation with 
the other Contracting Parties concerned, and chosen from amongst 
its own nationals who hold or who have held high judicial office, 
and will be distributed in accordance with paragraph 4(b). 

This paragraph does not apply if the amount of the damage thus 
assessed is less than 1500 United States dollars or the equivalent 
of this sum in the currency of the receiving State at the official rate 
of exchange on the day on which the arbitrator makes his award. 

13. The Subcommittee : 

(8) agreed to consider at the next meeting the question of dam- 
ages to State property referred to by the above French 
proposal ; 

(9) agreed to draw the attention of the Juridical Subcommittee 
to the juridical aspect of this matter. 

2MS-D(51) 6 (14 February 1951). 



78 

MS(F)-R(51) 4 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Financial Subcommittee), 14 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Article IX of the United States Draft. 1 

Article IX, par. 1(a) 

1. After the Chairman had invited the United States Representa- 
tive to indicate amendments in his draft, consequent upon the new 
definition of a contingent, he said that, insofar as the United King- 
dom was concerned, the fact that dependents were included in the 
provisions of the Article gave rise to difficulty, since it could not be 
claimed that dependents were on NATO duty. After a general ex- 
change of views, it became apparent that this point of view was 
almost universally held, and it was decided to strike out the refer- 
ence to "dependents" in the first part of paragraph 1. 

2. The Belgian Representative then drew attention to the fact that, 
if the present wording of the United States draft were allowed to 
stand, there would undoubtedly be cases in which people normally 
resident in a receiving State, who returned to that State as members 
of a force or of a civilian component of another State, would be liable 
to taxation on their pay and allowances by their own Government 
and still be liable to taxation in the receiving State as residents. 
Although such cases would be few in number, it was undesirable that 
this should occur. The possibility of obviating this either by a multi- 
lateral agreement such as the one being drafted or by bilateral agree- 
ments between Governments was considered. The French Representa- 
tive said he favored the inclusion of the second sentence of Article 12, 
par. 1(a), of the Brussels Treaty Agreement, which would encourage 
bilateral agreements. The United States Representative agreed to 
this, and there was general agreement. 

3. The Subcommittee then discussed the question of money, which 
did not constitute either pay or allowances, brought into a receiving 
State by a member of a force. This point had been excluded from the 
terms of Article 12 of the Brussels Treaty Agreement. From the 
discussion it became apparent that, if money other than pay or allow- 
ances were to be considered under this Article, there would be con- 
siderable difficulty in reaching agreement. It was pointed out that, 



i Reference: D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). The discussion, however, was 
based on the new definitions found in Article I of MS-D(51) 5 (12 February 
1951). 



79 

if the present Agreement did not cover the importation of private 
funds, it would not necessarily exclude members of the force or 
civilian component from enjoying exemption from taxation on ordi- 
nary grounds in that they were non-residents. 

4. After considering whether the phrase which had previously 
been renumbered as paragraph 2 of Article IX was correctly placed 
or whether it should not come at the head of the Article, the Nor- 
wegian and United States Representatives proposed the following 
redraft which would, in fact, cover paragraphs 1(a), 1(c), 2 and 3 
of the United States draft Article IX : 

The temporary presence in the receiving State of a member of a 
force or civilian component shall not of itself subject him to taxa- 
tion in the receiving State, either on his income or on his property, 
the presence of which in the receiving State is due solely to his 
temporary presence there, nor, in the event of his death, shall it 
subject his estate to a levy of death duties." 
As this went considerably further than the previous draft, it was 

apparent from discussion that further time would be required for 

study, and it was agreed to reconsider this later. 

5. The Subcommittee : 

(1) agreed that the redraft produced by the Norwegian and 
United States Delegations should be considered at the next 
meeting. 

Article IX, par. 1(b) 

6. The Subcommittee considered the United Kingdom redraft, 2 
and it was felt that the second sentence was not entirely necessary, 
although it was agreed that it would emphasize a point which might 
not otherwise be clear. 

7. The Subcommittee agreed that : 

(2) the first sentence of the United Kingdom's amendment 
should be included as a new paragraph 4 of Article IX ; 

(3) the existing paragraph 1 (b) should be deleted ; 

(4) "official vehicles" should be replaced by "service vehicles" 
in the text. 

AlRticle IX, par. 1(c) 

8. The Chairman said that as yet no new text of this subparagraph 
had been produced, but it seemed clear that the question of depend- 
ents would again be a matter of difficulty ; and it was agreed to delete 
the reference to them. 

9. The Subcommittee agreed that : 



2MS-D(51) 7 (14 February 1951) 



80 

(5) dependents should be excluded from the scope of the para- 
graph; 

(6) the question should be reconsidered after the arrival of a 
French expert. 

Article IX, par. 3 3 

10. For technical reasons the Danish Representative requested that 
the wording of the first sentence should be: "For the purpose of 
administration of the estates of deceased persons and of the levy of 
death duties." The Chairman suggested that this should be left to the 
Juridical Subcommittee. 

11. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(7) to pass to the Juridical Subcommittee the question of amend- 
ment suggested by the Danish Representative ; 

(8) to reconsider this paragraph in the light of the Norwegian 
and United States redraft of the Article, referred to above. 

//. Consideration of Article X of the United States Draft* 

Article X, par. 1 

12. The French Representative drew attention to the difference 
between the present text and that of Article 13, par. 1, of the Brussels 
Treaty Agreement. There was general agreement that the first sen- 
tence of the Brussels Treaty Agreement should be placed in the 
United States draft, and also that the United States draft mentioning 
"seizure" was preferable to the Brussels Treaty Agreement, which 
did not specifically mention this part. 

13. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(9) to the addition proposed by the French Representative at 
the beginning of paragraph (2) to include the final phrase 
about "seizure." 

Article X, par. 2 

14. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(10) that the words, "the entry, departure and use," should be 
replaced by the words, "temporary importation and re- 
exportation" ; 



3 This is numbered as Article IX, par. 2, in the draft: D-D (51) 23 (23 Janu- 
ary 1951). The paragraph number has been changed as a result of the action 
taken earlier by the Financial Subcommittee: MS(F)-R(51) 2, par. 15-17 
(13 February 1951). 

4 See note 1, supra. 



81 

(11) that the word "triptyque" should be used in the English 
text, as it was clearly understood in the English language. 

Article X, par. 3 

15. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(12) that the United States draft should be approved ; 

(13) that the words "sous pli scelle" in the French text should 
be replaced by "sous pli scelle d'un sceau officiel" ; 

(14) that the words "quel que soit le grade" in the French text 
should be replaced by "quelle que soit la qualite." 

Article X, par. 4 

16. The Chairman presented the United Kingdom redraft of para- 
graph 4, contained in MS-D(51) 7. The Subcommittee discussed 
whether the words "reasonable quantities of provisions" should be 
included, and it was apparent that the Representatives of those coun- 
tries most likely to be receiving States were in favor of this inclusion. 
The United States Representative quoted an Act of Congress relating 
to the import of duty-free supplies for British and French troops 
serving in the United States 5 and noted its reciprocal character, but 
he said that he would not oppose the introduction of the words "rea- 
sonable quantities." 

17. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(15) that the words "reasonable quantities" should be included 
in the United Kingdom redraft ; 

(16) that the redraft numbered paragraph 4(a) should be ap- 
proved, subject to the deletion of the words "in each con- 
tingent" in the last sentence. 

MS(F)-R(51) 5 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Financial Subcommittee), 15 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Article X of the Draft Agreement?- 

Article X, par. 4(a) 

1. The Subcommittee, at the request of the United States Repre- 
sentative, agreed : 



5 The reference appears to be to 63 Stat. 666 (1949), 19 U.S.C. § 196a 
(1958 ed.). 

i References: D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951), for the original draft; MS- 



82 

(1) that the words "the equipment and" should be inserted be- 
tween "importation" and "reasonable supplies of" in the 
first sentence. 

Article X, par. 4(b) 

2. The Subcommittee, in order to avoid confusion because of the 
use of the English word "duty" in two different senses, agreed : 

(2) that the word "service" should replace "duty" when military 
duty was implied. 

Article X, par. 4(c) 

3. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(3) that the sentence, "There is no obligation under this Article 
to grant exemption from taxes payable in respect of the use 
of the roads by private vehicles," should be deleted from 
Article IX and added to paragraph 4(c) of Article X as a 
second sentence. 

Article X, par. 5 

4. The Norwegian Representative said that the draft should take 
account of the fact that it might be necessary to re-export goods 
either to another North Atlantic Treaty country or elsewhere. 

5. The Subcommittee, to meet this point, agreed : 

(4) that the first sentence of subparagraph (a) should read: 
"Can be re-exported freely provided that a certificate. . ." 

Article X, par. 6-7 

6. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(5) that these paragraphs were satisfactory. 

Article X, par. 8 

7. The Subcommittee, in order to bring the wording of the text 
into line with previous Articles, agreed: 

(6) that the phrase, "for use .... may be," should be replaced 
by: "for use in service vehicles, aircraft and vessels of a 
force or civilian component, may be." 

D(51) 7 (14 February 1951), for the United Kingdom amendments. The para- 
graphs throughout this Summary Record have been renumbered consecutively 
by the editor. 



83 



2 



77. Consideration of Article XI. 

8. The Danish Representative inquired whether a receiving State 
would have the right to insist that goods imported duty-free should 
be specially packed or marked. The point was made in discussion 
that this was done by several States already, but it was agreed that a 
receiving State had the right so to demand. 

9. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(7) that the text as drafted was satisfactory. 

///. Consideration of Article XII. 3 

Article XII, par. 1-3 

10. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(8) that the texts of these paragraphs were satisfactory, subject 
to the deletion of the word "contingent" throughout and its 
replacement in paragraph 1 by the words "sending State," 
in paragraph 2 by "force," and in paragraph 3 by "force or 
civilian component and their dependents." 

Article XII, par. 4 (new) 

11. The Belgian Representative said that he considered that it was 
essential that the wording of Article 15, par. 4, of the Brussels Treaty 
Agreement should be reproduced in the present Agreement. This 
point of view received general approval in discussion. 

12. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(9) that the text of Article 15, par. 4, of the Brussels Treaty 
Agreement should form paragraph 4 of Article XII. 

IV. Consideration of Article XIII. 4 

13. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(10) that the text of Article 16, par. 1, of the Brussels Treaty 
Agreement was preferable to the United States draft. 

(11) that paragraph 1 should read: "Members of a force or a 
civilian component shall remain subject to the foreign 
exchange regulations of the sending State and are also 
subject to the regulations of the receiving State." 

(12) that the last phrase of paragraph 2 should read: "appli- 
cable to members of a force or civilian component." 



2 Reference: D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951) 

3 See note 2, supra. 

4 See note 2, supra. 



84 

V. Future Business. 

14. It was proposed that the Subcommittee should not hold a 
further meeting until the following week, when Delegations would 
have had instructions from their Governments about the Norwegian 
redraft 5 proposed for Article IX. The Belgian and French Repre- 
sentatives were of the opinion that a useful discussion could be had 
the following day to narrow points of difference, particularly as a 
French expert was now present. 

15. At the suggestion of the Chairman, it was agreed that Articles 
VIII and X-XIII should be redrafted to take account of amend- 
ments agreed, without delay, and that the following day these should 
be considered. Thereafter, in view of the general opinion of the meet- 
ing, he agreed that Article IX should be discussed. 

16. The Subcommittee approved the Chairman's proposal and 
broke up into drafting committees to prepare new texts of Articles 
VIII and X-XIII. 

MS(F)-R(51) 6 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Financial Subcommittee), 16 February 1951 

/. Apology for Absence. 

1. The Icelandic Representative sent a message to the Chairman, 
apologizing for his inability to attend. 

//. Articles VIII and X-XIII. 1 

2. The Subcommittee considered MS-D(51) 9, containing the re- 
vised text of Articles VIII and X-XIII of the draft Agreement. 
A number of amendments listed in the Annex to this Record were 
approved to bring the English and French texts into line and to 
improve them generally. 

3. The Canadian Representative drew attention to the use of the 
words "sole responsibility" used in Article VIII, par. 3, and inquired 
whether this meant that the receiving State had an absolute right to 
allocate accommodation to the force of a sending State. The Subcom- 
mittee after discussion agreed that nothing in the Article as drafted 
prevented the receiving State from delegating such of its powers in 
this field as it wished. 



5 See MS(F)-R(51) 6, par. 5, note 1 (16 February 1951) 
i Reference: MS-D(51) 9 (16 February 1951). 



85 

4. It was generally agreed that Article XIII should refer, in both 
its paragraphs, to the same categories of people, i.e., a force, a civilian 
element, the members thereof as well as their dependents. 

///. Article IX. 

5. The Subcommittee had before them a Norwegian redraft and a 
French redraft of this Article. ( Neither of these documents has been 
reproduced as an official document). 2 

6. The Chairman said that, in his opinion, what was required was 
a short text which was quite clear to the layman and which did not 
entail a knowledge of the income-tax laws of the receiving State. In 
this respect he liked the form of the Norwegian draft. 

7. The United States Representative, with the agreement of the 
Norwegian Representative, suggested that the latter's text should be 
amended to read : "The temporary presence in the receiving State of 
a member of a force or a civilian component shall constitute neither 
domicile nor residence therein and shall not of itself " 

8. The Chairman then invited the French Delegation to explain 
their proposals. M. Serre then explained the terms of the French 
amendment. 

9. In the discussion which followed, the Chairman drew attention 
to the fact that the Norwegian draft appeared to extend indefinitely 
the period of "temporary residence" so long as the person concerned 
was on NATO duty. The position of a person who was either a 
national or a resident of the receiving State before he arrived in that 
State on NATO duty was also discussed. It was the general view of 
the Subcommittee that the Article should be drafted in such a way 
that no one avoided paying tax altogether and that therefore when a 
member of a force, etc., went to a receiving State he should retain 
his previous residence. This clearly raised points of difficulty in 
domestic legislation for some delegates. 

10. The Belgian Representative drew attention to a Convention 






2 The copy of MS(F)-R(51) 6 in the Office of the General Counsel, Depart- 
ment of Defense, however, has attached to it a page with the following pencilled 
notation: "Article X (Norwegian- American text). The temporary presence in 
the receiving State of a member of a force or civilian component shall constitute 
neither residence and domicile therein, and shall not of itself subject him to 
taxation in the receiving State, either on his income or on his property the 
presence of which in the receiving State is due to his temporary presence there, 
nor, in the event of his death, shall it subject his estate to a levy of death 
duties." The designation of this text as "Norwegian-American" is undoubtedly 
due to the amendment suggested by the United States Representative in MS(F)- 
R(51) 6, par. 7 (16 February 1951). Cf. MS(F)-R(51) 4, par. 4 (14 February 
1951). 



86 

relating to the taxation of the staffs of International Organizations 
which had recently been drawn up by experts in Paris, which dealt 
only with pay and allowances. This seemed to the members of the 
Subcommittee to set a datum beyond which they could not go. 

11. It was eventually decided that there should be a small informal 
meeting that afternoon. The Belgian Representative suggested that a 
questionnaire should be drawn up so that delegations could ask spe- 
cific questions of their Governments. It was hoped that when dele- 
gates had their instructions on points of principle it would be pos- 
sible to draw up a new text. 

ANNEX 

12. The Subcommittee considered the revised text of Articles VIII 
and X-XIII contained in MS-D(51) 9, and the following amend- 
ments were agreed : 

(a) Article VIII, par. 3. Insert in the first sentence of the Eng- 
lish text the words "which it requires" after "buildings and 
grounds." In the French text, for "armee" read "armee." 

(b) Article VIII, par. 7. In the English text, delete "5" and 
insert "5 and" after the word "necessary." 

(c) Article VIII, par. 8. Delete first line of English text, and 
substitute: "Neither a force, nor a civilian component, nor 
the members thereof nor their dependents shall." In the 
French text delete the words "ni leurs membres," and 
replace by : "ni les membres de ceux-ci ni les personnes a 
charge." For "exception" in the French text, read "exemp- 
tion." 

(d) Article X, par. 1. In the second line after "component" add : 
"as well as their dependents." In the French text, add after 
"ont" the word "notamment." 

(e) Article X, par. 2. In the French text, amend "tryptique" to 
read "triptyque." 

(f) Article X, par. 4. In the English text at the beginning of 
the second sentence, for "This is" read "There is." 

(g) Article X, par. 12. In the English text, insert after "In" 
the words "paragraph 1-10 of." 

(h) Article XIII, par. 1. Amend the first line to read : "A force, 
a civilian component and the members thereof as well as 
their dependents shall remain." Amend similarly the French 
text. 

(i) Article XIII, par. 2. Delete from "force or" to the end of 
the paragraph, and substitute: "force or a civilian com- 



87 

ponent and the members thereof, as well as their depend- 
ents." In the French text after "element civil" add the 
words "aux membres de ceux-ci." 
(j) Annex A. In the French text, delete "apparent de T.S.F. 
sur la voiture" and substitute "Materiel de transmission 
fixe a demeure." 

MS(J)-R(51) 1 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 8 February 1951 

/. Summary Records of Meetings of the Working Group. 1 

1. The Chairman 2 invited the members of the Working Group to 
inform the Secretary in writing of any amendments which they 
might wish to have made to the Summary Records of the first four 
meetings of the Working Group. 3 

II. Statement by the Icelandic Representative. 

2. The Icelandic Representative stated that he was in a position 
to make known the official attitude of his Government. Neither the 
draft proposed by the United States Delegation nor the Western 
Union Agreement was acceptable to the Icelandic Government, as a 
number of points in the two drafts did not apply to Iceland because 
of its special position with NATO. Discussions had been initiated 
between the Icelandic Government and the Standing Group in Wash- 
ington regarding the problems of Icelandic defense in peace time. 
As a result of these discussions it had been decided to commence 
negotiations in Iceland in the very near future; the Standing Group 
had designated a representative for this purpose. Correspondence 
between the Icelandic Government and the military side of NATO 
in Washington definitely established the fact that these negotiations 
should also cover the points arising from Iceland's special position 
in regard to services rendered in time of peace to foreign forces. The 
Icelandic Government therefore felt that they could not make any 

i Previous references: MS-R(51) 1-4 (29-31 January 1951). 

2 Mr. G. W. Lambert, United Kingdom Representative, served as Chairman of 
all the meetings of the Juridical Subcommittee except the fifth: MS(J)-R(51) 
1-4 (8-16 February 1951) ; MS(J)-R(51) 6-9 (22-23 February 1951). At the 
fifth meeting, the Chairman was Brig. Gen. C. E. Snow, United States Repre- 
sentative: MS(J)-R(51) 5 (17 February 1951). 

3 Any official corrections or addenda to the Summary Records or Documents 
have been made by the editor without further notation. 



88 

useful contribution to the work of the Working Group. The Ice- 
landic Government wished however to follow the discussions taking 
place in the Working Group and its subcommittees. 

777. Consideration of Articles I -VI of the Draft Agreement* 

3. The Chairman proposed that Articles I-VI of the draft sub- 
mitted by the United States Delegation should be considered sep- 
arately one after the other. It would perhaps be possible to adopt a 
new draft which would then be submitted to Governments for their 
final approval. 

Preamble and Title 

4. The Canadian Representative wished to delete the words "priv- 
ileges" and "immunities" from the title of the Agreement. He pro- 
posed that a title similar to that of the Western Union Agreement 
should be used. 

Article I 

5. The Chairman said that, with a view to facilitating the consid- 
eration of Article I, he had prepared a document 5 setting out the 
difficulties which might be raised by the inclusion of civilians in the 
definition of "contingent." He proposed that this question should be 
discussed in the course of the consideration of the various articles of 
the draft. It would then be possible to adopt a common definition. 

6. The United States Representative stated that he was prepared 
to replace the word "contingent" by some term similar to that em- 
ployed in the Western Union Agreement, such as "foreign force." 

7. With regard to civilians accompanying the armed forces, the 
United States Representative agreed that it would be preferable not 
to include them in the definition of "armed forces" ; they should how- 
ever be covered by a separate definition. The definition of the 
"armed forces" should be broad enough to include all the military 
personnel of the sending State who were stationed or in transit in the 
territory of another member State. The definition of "civilians" 
should apply to all civilian components of the armed forces, whether 
they were employed by the armed forces or acting under orders; 
any reference to military law would thus be deleted — see MS-R(51) 
2, par. 3 and 9. 



4 References: D-D (51) 23 (23 February 1951), for the United States draft; 
Cmd. 7868 (21 December 1949) for the Brussels Treaty Status (Western Union 
Agreement ) . 

5MS-D(51) 3 (7 February 1951). 



89 

8. Referring to the definition of "armed forces," the Belgian Rep- 
resentative enquired whether the Agreement would apply to every 
member of the armed forces of a sending State, for whatever reason 
he might be present in the territory of the receiving State. Should 
a distinction be drawn between his presence for the purpose of carry- 
ing out duties under the North Atlantic Treaty and for any other 
purpose? The Western Union Agreement (Article 1(a) and (d)) was 
valid only if the armed force was stationed in a territory of the re- 
ceiving State "in the execution of duties under the Brussels Treaty." 

9. In the opinion of the United States Representative, the draft 
did not draw such a distinction, but applied to all foreign forces, 
whatever the purpose of their presence in the territory of the receiv- 
ing State. 

10. The Netherlands Representative raised the question of the ap- 
plication of the Agreement to the military attaches of the various 
sending States, who enjoyed diplomatic privileges which were gen- 
erally more extensive than those provided in the draft. This question 
would be considered later. 

11. The Canadian Representative proposed that the Preamble, or 
the Article dealing with definitions, should state that the Agreement 
applied to all armed forces, for whatever purpose they might be 
stationed in the territory of the receiving State. 

12. The United States Representative proposed to delete the refer- 
ence to the case of dual nationality in Article 1(a) of his draft and 
not to provide an exception for that case. The Agreement should only 
apply to civilians when they were [not] nationals of the receiving 
State. 

13. The Norwegian Representative recalled the special position of 
his country, which was bound by an earlier agreement and could not 
admit foreign forces into its territory nor grant bases to a foreign 
power. His country had no objection to admitting military missions, 
and in this sense Norway might become a receiving State. 

14. The Portuguese Representative stated that facilities had been 
granted to the United States Government to use the Azores as a 
military base. A special Agreement existed between Portugal and 
the United States, which provided for the presence of United States 
troops in the Azores; the present Agreement would not therefore 
apply in this case. 

15. The Chairman proposed that the term "foreign force" should 
be altered; the word "foreign" was inappropriate where the rela- 
tions between Canada and the United Kingdom were concerned. A 
better term would be "visiting force." 

16. The French Representative proposed that the term "military 



90 

force" should be used. It would be defined as "a force maintained by 
a Contracting Party and which is stationed on duty in the territory 
of another Contracting Party." 

17. The Chairman could not accept the adjective "military," which, 
in English, "excluded the Navy and Air Force." 

18. The Norwegian Representative would not be able to accept a 
definition of "armed force" or "military force" which would imply 
consent to admit foreign forces into Norwegian territory, in view of 
the special position of his country. 

19. The Subcommittee : 

(1) agreed to charge a drafting committee with the preparation 
of a new draft of Article I, taking into account the above 
comments. 

Article 2 (Brussels Status) 

20. The Chairman pointed out that Article 2 of the Western Union 
Agreement distinguished between "personnel on permanent duty" 
and "personnel on temporary duty." In this connection, he stated 
that a draft Agreement was at present under consideration by the 
United Kingdom Departments which would apply to the interna- 
tional staff of NATO as well as to the various delegations. 

21. The Subcommittee : 

(2) agreed not to repeat Article 2 of the Western Union Agree- 
ment in the new Agreement. 

Article II, par. 1 

22. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom had some diffi- 
culty in providing an exception to immigration inspection in the 
Agreement. 

23. It emerged from the ensuing discussion that Article II, par. 1, 
did not require the abolition of existing formalities — in particular, 
the use of the "landing card" — but sought to avoid any difficulty 
which might arise from legislation governing immigration. Para- 
graph 2 of Article II provided, moreover, that certain documents 
would be required by the receiving State. 

Article II, par. 2 

24. Before embarking on the study of articles relating to the docu- 
ments required in respect of members of the armed forces, the Juri- 
dical Subcommittee considered the special case of civilians accom- 



91 

panying the armed forces. In the course of the ensuing discussion, 
the following comments were made. 

25. In the case of the United Kingdom, it would be difficult to 
grant the same privileges to civilians as to members of the forces. 
Civilians would have to hold a passport, although it was not neces- 
sary to require a visa in their c\se; but an identity card was not 
regarded as sufficient. Civilians would also have to undertake not to 
accept civilian employment during their visit to the United Kingdom. 

26. The French Representative wished to see closer attention given 
to the case of civilians accompanying the armed forces and who were 
nationals of a different sending State. 

27. The Subcommittee : 

(3) agreed to study the above questions in the course of consid- 
eration of the special position of civilians accompanying the 
armed forces. 

Article II, par. 2(a) 

28. The Chairman drew the attention of the Subcommittee to 
Annex A of the Western Union Agreement, which gave a model 
identity card for use by the forces of the Western Union countries. 
It emerged from the ensuing discussion that it would be sufficient if 
the members of the forces were in possession of a national identity 
card issued by the military authorities. That identity card would be 
communicated to the member countries, in order to enable the immi- 
gration authorities of each country to familiarize themselves with it. 

Article II, par. 2(b) 

29. The Western Union Agreement provided (Article 3, par. 2) 
that individual or collective movement orders would be "issued by 
the Service Minister concerned of the sending State." It did not 
seem necessary to repeat those details, and it would be sufficient to 
provide that a movement order would be issued by the competent 
services of the sending State. It was also agreed that these movement 
orders would be worded in the language of the sending State and in 
French and English. The reference to military law would also be 
omitted. Lastly, the word "signed" would be replaced by "counter- 
signed." The formality requiring the countersignature of an appro- 
priate representative of the receiving State signified that, if it was 
considered necessary, the latter could refuse entry to military or 
civilian forces. 



92 

MS(J)-R(51) 2 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 8 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Articles I -VI of the Draft Agreement. 1 

Article III 

1. The Chairman stated the United Kingdom position with respect 
to driving permits. There were two cases to consider: (a) if the 
visiting driver held an international driving license, this license was 
accepted as valid in Great Britain, without a farther driving test or 
fee; (b) if the visiting driver held a driving license issued by his 
national authorities, the United Kingdom required him to take out a 
British driving license. No further driving test was required, but 
the stipulated fee of 5 shillings was charged. When the provisions 
relating to driving permits of the Convention on Road Traffic, 2 
signed in Geneva on 19 September 1949, came into force, this fee 
would no longer be required. The United Kingdom Representative 
therefore considered that it would be desirable to make no reference 
in the present Agreement (see Article III, first and last sentences) 
to the fee required when the driving permit was issued, on the under- 
standing that this was a temporary measure. It would otherwise be 
necessary to alter existing legislation, which would call for Parlia- 
mentary action and delay the implementation of the other provisions 
of the Agreement. 

2. The United States Representative was obliged to reserve his 
Government's view on this point. 

3. Referring to the case of civilians and dependents, the Chairman 
pointed out that they were in the same position, whether they held an 
international or national driving license. 

4. The Subcommittee : 

(1) agreed to reconsider the provisions of Article III at a 
later date. 

Article IV, par. 1 

5. With regard to the wearing of uniform two opinions were ex- 
pressed : 



i Discussion continued from first meeting of the Juridical Subcommittee : 
MS(J)-R(51) 1 (8 February 1951). References: D-D (51) 23 (23 January 
1951) ; and MS-D(51) 2 (6 February 1951), for the discussion of Article VI 
(on criminal jurisdiction) in par. 10-17 of the present Summary Record. 

2 TIAS 2487 ; 3 UST 3008 ; 125 UNTS 22. 



93 

(a) The Agreement should contain specific rules; any exception 
to those rules should be the subject of consultations between 
the military authorities of the sending State and those of 
the receiving State. 

(b) The Agreement should be restricted to the general principle 
that members of the armed forces would normally wear 
uniform. 

6. The Subcommittee : 

(2) agreed that the drafting committee should reconsider the 
provisions of this Article. 

Article IV, par. 2 

7. The Subcommittee : 

(3) agreed to retain Article IV, par. 2, in its present form, leav- 
ing SHAPE to specify the distinctive nationality marks 
which should appear on service vehicles. 



Article V, par. 1 

8. As a general rule, local authorities had no right to intervene in 
matters concerning the carriage of arms by the members of a foreign 
force on duty ; the members of the foreign force should, however, be 
subject to local regulations when not on duty. If, for special reasons, 
the local authorities wished to prevent the members of a foreign 
force from carrying arms, this should be the subject of a friendly 
agreement with the military authorities of the sending State : a pro- 
vision to that effect could not be included in the present Agreement. 
The words "on condition that this is authorised by their orders" 
should be interpreted as covering all cases. 

9. The Subcommittee : 

(4) agreed that Article V, par. 1, would be the subject of dis- 
cussion on the drafting committee. 



Article VI (redraft) 3 

10. The Chairman invited each Representative to express his view 
on the rights which might be reserved to the . . . 

11. The Belgian Representative wished to reserve judgment only 
with respect to cases where the victim of the offense was a national 



3 Reference: MS-D(51) 2 (6 February 1951)— a redraft of Article VI as con- 
tained in D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). 



94 

of the receiving State, even if the offense was committed by a mem- 
ber of an armed force on duty. 4 

12. The French Representative, summarizing Article VI, pointed 
out that paragraphs 1 and 2 set out the two principles underlying 
the Article as a whole, namely : the right of the sending State to 
exercise jurisdiction in the receiving State, and the principle that 
the laws of the receiving State were applicable to the members of 
the armed forces of the sending State. Paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 were 
based on these two principles and laid down either the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the sending State, in the case, for example, of treason, 
sabotage, etc. — and the violation of any law of the sending State — 
or the concurrent jurisdiction of the sending State and the receiving 
State. In this latter case, either the receiving State or the sending 
State had the primary right of jurisdiction : with respect to offenses 
committed on duty or offenses against the property of the sending 
State or against a member of the armed forces of the sending State, 
it would be the sending State which would have the primary right 
to exercise jurisdiction; in other cases, it would be the receiving 
State. 

13. The French Representative was able to accept these two prin- 
ciples and supported the second draft prepared by the United States 
Representative. He recalled however that it would be necessary to 
define more clearly the concept of a member of an armed force 
"on duty." 

14. The Italian Representative considered that it would be prefer- 
able to present the case of the exclusive jurisdiction of the sending 
State as an exception to the rule of the right of jurisdiction of the 
receiving State. It appeared to him to be desirable to alter the form 
of Article VI, without however altering the substance. 

15. The Netherlands Representative did not agree with the Italian 
view. He regarded the rule of the right of jurisdiction of the receiv- 
ing State to be an exception to the principle of the right of jurisdic- 
tion of the sending State; military acts fell normally within the 
competence of the military authorities. In his opinion, this was the 
rule adopted by international law. 

16. The Belgian Representative did not consider this rule of inter- 
national law to be applicable in the present case. There was no doubt 
a proviso which recognized that the sending State exercised exclusive 
jurisdiction over the members of its armed forces stationed abroad; 
but as that proviso implied the possibility of conflicting sovereignty, 
it could not apply to the present case, in which twelve countries by 
international agreement were committed to respect common rules. 



4 See MS-D(51) 8 (16 February 1951). 



95 

IT. The United States Representative considered that this was a 
difficulty of principle which was more apparent than real. The agree- 
ment on a common status would enable these difficulties arising out 
of international law to be overcome. 

18. The Subcommittee : 

(5) agreed that the following meeting would take place on 
Thursday, 15 February 1951 ; 

(6) agreed to consider the first six articles at that meeting in 
the light of the above comments. 

MS(J)-R(51) 3 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 15 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Article VII of the Draft Agreement. 1 

Damages to State Property; Maritime Damages 

1. After stating the subject of Article VII, the Chairman recalled 
that this Article had already been the subject of a preliminary dis- 
cussion by the Financial Subcommittee at its meeting 2 on 13 February 
1951. At that meeting divergent views had been expressed on the 
interpretation of Article 8 of the Western Union Agreement, which 
was chiefly concerned with the waiver of claims for damages to ves- 
sels owned and used by the State. In particular, the last sentence of 
Article 8, par. 2(a), of the Western Union Agreement had given rise 
to disagreement. 

2. The Belgian Representative, who had been present at the meet- 
ings at which the Western Union Agreement was prepared, recalled 
that the sentence, "These claims will be brought against the author- 
ities of the Party to whom the vessel belongs," had been inserted at 
the request of the United Kingdom Representative. It had been 
recognized that it was not within the scope of the Agreement to 
specify which courts would be competent to give judgment with 
respect to claims of this kind; international conventions on this 
matter were in existence, which should be referred to — for example, 
the international convention on the unification of certain regulations 
concerning the immunities of state vessels, which had been signed in 
Brussels in April 1926. It had therefore been the opinion of the 
United Kingdom Delegation that there was no departure from inter- 
national conventions in matters concerning collisions, salvage and 

i Reference: MS-D(51) 4(R) (12 February 1951). 
2 See MS (F) -11(51) 1 (13 February 1951). 



96 

rescue at sea. The sentence which the United Kingdom Delegation 
had requested should be added to the text merely signified that the 
claim should first be submitted to the State, in order to enable it to 
come to an arrangement. It would therefore appear that claims in 
respect of maritime damages were excluded from Article 8 of the 
Western Union Agreement. 

3. The Canadian Representative considered that it would be pre- 
ferable that the mutual waiver of claims in the case covered by 
Article VII, par. 1, of the draft submitted by the United States 
Delegation should apply to damages caused on land and in the air, 
as well as to those caused at sea. 

4. The Chairman noted that the Western Union Agreement com- 
pletely disregarded this category of damages. Nevertheless, he pro- 
posed that maritime damages should be excluded from paragraph 1 
and should be the subject of special discussion, the results of which 
would be incorporated into a new paragraph. 

5. The United States Representative was in favor of the Canadian 
Representative's proposal and considered that it was important that 
the new Agreement should cover maritime damages. A clause could 
no doubt be easily inserted to provide a mutual waiver of damages 
caused to State vessels. This would presuppose a precise definition 
of the term "State vessel," in order to exclude all other maritime 
damages from the application of this Agreement. 

6. The Canadian Representative pointed out that, in this case, it 
would be necessary for the definition to take into account only vessels 
belonging to military, naval and air Ministries, excluding, for exam- 
ple, vessels belonging to commercial Departments. Warships and 
troop transports would thus be included in the definition, whereas 
the vessels of martime commercial companies would be excluded. 

7. The Subcommittee: 

(1) agreed to amend the wording of Article VII, in order to 
make paragraph 1 applicable to State vessels ; 

(2) agreed to specify the definition of "State vessel" in the 
Agreement, in the light of the above comments. 

8. The Chairman recalled that, at the meeting of the Financial 
Subcommittee which took place on Wednesday, 14 February 1951, 
the French Representative had made a proposal regarding the waiver 
of claims in the case of damages to State property. The Financial 
Subcommittee had drawn the attention of the Juridical Subcommit- 
tee to this question. 3 



3 See MS(F)-R(51) 3, par, 13-14 (14 February 1951). 



97 

9. The Subcommittee : 

(3) agreed that the Agreement should include a text similar to 
Article 8, par. 6, of the Western Union Agreement, which 
was also the subject of a proposal by the French Delegation ; 4 

(4) agreed to consider at a subsequent meeting the first para- 
graph of the French proposal, referring to certain categories 
of damage to State property. 5 

Article VII, par. 4(a) 

10. The Chairman drew the attention of the Subcommittee to para- 
graph 4(a) and proposed that the words "the claimant" should be 
deleted, since it was irregular to restrict the rights of the claimant. 

11. The Italian Representative proposed a procedure concerning 
the settlement of claims for damages, which he thought would be 
more expeditious. Cases falling within the application of the Agree- 
ment would be brought before a joint court composed as follows : 
one representative of the sending State — or of each sending State — 
and one representative of the receiving State, with a high-ranking 
magistrate of the receiving State in the chair. A procedure of this 
kind would ensure the expeditious settlement of military questions 
and, moreover, would make it possible to establish a uniform system 
of jurisprudence in all receiving States. Lastly, in view of the fact 
that the receiving State would probably have to assume part of the 
financial burden arising out of the settlement of claims, it was rea- 
sonable to provide that it should be represented before the court 
which pronounced judgment in these matters. 

12. It emerged from the discussion that the Italian Representa- 
tive's suggestion would be liable to create fresh difficulties, and the 
proposal as a whole was rejected. 

13. The Chairman pointed out that the procedure at present pro- 
vided in paragraph 4(a) did not exclude any special procedure which 
might be suitable in the case of any given receiving State. A receiv- 
ing State would thus be able to propose that a joint court should be 
set up, as suggested by the Italian Representative. 

14. The Netherlands Representative commented that paragraph 4 
referred to "non-combatant activities." He requested clarification of 
the exact meaning of this term. 

15. The United States Representative replied that this passage was 



4 See MS(F)-R(51) 3, par. 13-14 (14 February 1951) 

5 See MS(F)-R(51) 3, par. 12 (14 February 1951). 



98 

a reference to the principle that damages occurring during combat 
shall never constitute grounds for judicial action. 

16. It was proposed that the English expression "noncombatant" 
should be replaced by "not incident to combat." This amendment did 
not necessitate any amendment in the corresponding passage in the 
French text. 

17. At the request of the Canadian Representative, it was agreed 
that paragraph 4 would also apply to civilian components. The text 
was accordingly amended as follows: the words "and their civilian 
component" should be inserted after "members of the forces of a 
sending State." 

Other Comments 

18. The Danish Representative proposed that the last sentence of 
paragraph 3 should be amended as follows: the phrase "shall be 
immune from the civil jurisdiction of the receiving State" should be 
replaced by "shall be immune from the process of the civil courts of 
the receiving State." 

19. In reply to a question raised by the French Representative, the 
Chairman stated that in the case of civil actions brought against a 
civilian or military member of a force, but with respect to which an 
exception was provided under paragraph 3, the Government of the 
sending State would stand behind the defendant and would be re- 
sponsible for the whole trial. Nevertheless, this would not prevent 
the members of a force or civilian component, who were responsible 
for the action committed or omitted with respect to which the action 
had been brought, from appearing as witnesses at the trial. It was 
thus the member of the force or civilian component who was officially 
the defendant, although it was the sending State itself which would 
assume the defense. 

20. The Netherlands Representative raised the question of the ap- 
plication of the Agreement to overseas territories. 

21. The Subcommittee : 

(5) agreed not to deal with this question in connection with 
Article VII, but to examine it in connection with the Agree- 
ment as a whole, when the general clauses relating to its 
application were in course of preparation; 

(6) took note that the Chairman would prepare a redraft of 
this Article in the light of the above considerations. 



99 

MS(J)-R(51) 4 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 1 16 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Article I (Definitions). 2 

1. The Chairman invited the Representatives to express their views 
on the definitions contained in Article I of the draft Agreement. 

2. In reply to a question by the Danish Representative, the United 
States Representative mentioned, by way of example, the following 
categories of persons who would be included within the definition of 
the term "civilian component" : — construction workers, canteen per- 
sonnel, specialists, office personnel, stenographers, etc. Red Cross 
workers, entertainers, YMCA personnel were excluded from this 
definition. The categories of persons belonging to the civilian com- 
ponent would, of course, possess identity cards, such as were provided 
for in the case of the armed forces. Moreover, the receiving State 
would doubtless wish to receive at regular intervals a list of the 
names of civilians accompanying the armed forces. The receiving 
State could also regulate the entry of members of the civilian compo- 
nent into its territory by means of its immigration formalities (for 
example, the "landing card"). 

3. The Subcommittee : 

(1) approved the text of Article I of the draft. 

//. Article VI. 3 

Article VI, par. 1 

4. The Chairman drew the attention of the Subcommittee to the 
memorandum submitted by the Norwegian Representative in refer- 
ence to the death penalty. 4 

5. The rights of the receiving State in regard to the execution of 
the death penalty were recognized by all the members of the Sub- 
committee. It would only be necessary to add to the text of para- 
graph 1 a provision to this effect. The following wording was pro- 
posed : "Death sentences, however, shall not be carried out in the 
receiving State if the legislation of the receiving State does not pro- 
vide for such punishment." 



iThe English version of MS(J)-R(51) 4 has been translated by the editor 
from the original French text, no official English translation having ever been 
made. 

2 Reference: MS-D(51) 5 (12 February 1951). 

3 Reference: MS-D(51) 5 ( 12 February 1951 ) . 

4MS-D(51) 10 (16 February 1951). 



100 

6. Paragraph 1 refers to the military authorities of the sending 
State. It would be necessary to modify the definition of these, con- 
tained in Article I, so that it could include the judicial authorities, 
even civilian, who might be brought within the territory of the re- 
ceiving State for the application of the present Agreement. 

7. The Subcommittee : 

(2) agreed to modify the definition of "military authorities of 
the sending State" so as to extend it to the judicial author- 
ities of that State. 

Article VI, par. 2 

8. The French Representative noted that the concept of "official 
secrets" did not exist in French law, which provided only against the 
violation of secrets relating to the national defense. He proposed 
that paragraph 2(b) should be amended accordingly. 

9. The Subcommittee : 

(3) agreed to add to paragraph 2(b) the words: "or secrets 
relating to the national defence of that State." 

10. The Canadian Representative suggested that, in the first sen- 
tence of paragraph 2, the words "shall have exclusive jurisdiction" 
should be replaced by the words "shall exercise exclusive juris- 
diction." 

11. The United States Representative suggested that, in the same 
sentence, the words "including offences" should be amended by sub- 
stituting therefor the words "and offences." This would make clear 
provision for the case of offenses relating to the security of the send- 
ing State and not punishable by the law of the receiving State. 

12. The Subcommittee : 

(4) agreed, in view of the comment by the United States Repre- 
sentative, to amend paragraph 2 as follows : Delete the 
words: "with respect to offences punishable . . . receiving 
State." Substitute therefor the words: "with respect to 
offences relating to the security of the sending State, but not 
to that of the receiving State, and to all other offences pun- 
ishable by the law of that State but not by the law of the 
receiving State." 

13. The Chairman pointed out that, to the extent that the Con- 
tracting Parties enacted the legislation necessary to insure within 
their respective territories the security of the official information of 
the other Contracting Parties — as was provided in paragraph 9 of 
Article VI, — offenses relating to the security of the sending State 
would also be punishable by the law of the receiving State, and would 



101 

therefore fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of the sending and 
receiving States. He suggested therefore that in paragraph 4(a), 
after the words "Offences solely against the property" there should 
be added the words "or the security," so as to preserve for the send- 
ing State the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. 

14. The Subcommittee : 

(5) agreed to amend paragraph 4(a) to make it applicable to 
offenses against the security of the sending State. 

Article VI, par. 3 

15. Paragraph 3 was based on the general principle of the respect 
owed to the laws of the receiving State by the armed forces, civilian 
components and their dependents. It was proposed that this para- 
graph be made a separate Article at the beginning of the Agreement 
(new Article II). 

16. The Norwegian Representative wished also to include a sen- 
tence to draw the attention of the authorities of the sending State to 
their duty to take necessary measures to ensure that their nationals 
respected the law of the receiving State. The military authorities 
could, for example, issue instructions to the members of their forces 
to urge them to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving 
State. 

17. The Subcommittee : 

(6) agreed that paragraph 3 should become Article II (new), 
and that the numbering of subsequent Articles, as well as 
the numbering of the paragraphs of Article VI, should be 
changed accordingly ; 

(7) agreed to add the words "and their dependents" in new 
Article II after the words "civilian components of the send- 
ing State." At the end of the Article, add the following sen- 
tence : "It is also the duty of the authorities of the sending 
State to take necessary measures to that end." 

Article VI, par. 4 

18. The Chairman proposed that the memorandum submitted by 
the Belgian Delegation on traffic accidents 5 should be considered in 
relation to paragraph 4. In this document, the Belgian Representa- 
tive had expressed the view that the provisions of paragraph 4(b) 
should not be applicable to traffic accidents, but that these should be 
special cases within the jurisdiction of the receiving State. 

19. The Netherlands Representative associated himself with this 
view. 



5MS-D(51) 8 (16 February 1951) 



102 

20. The Chairman pointed out that doubtless there were argu- 
ments in favor of jurisdiction for the courts of the receiving State 
in the case of traffic accidents which made a special impact upon 
public opinion. However, all military codes considered as offenses 
the acts of members of the armed forces which were such as to dis- 
turb the order of the receiving State. This was a guarantee that 
violations of police regulations, especially as regards traffic, would 
be punishable within the framework of military law. 

21. The Danish Representative wished to see adopted the text of 
Article 7, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3, of the Western Union Agree- 
ment. In his opinion, it was necessary to provide certain exceptions 
to the jurisdiction of the sending State in the case of offenses com- 
mitted by the members of its forces in the performance of official 
duty. 

22. The United States Representative pointed out that the text of 
paragraph 4 in its present form represented a compromise. The ex- 
ceptions which it lays down to the jurisdiction of the receiving State 
are indispensable for the maintenance of discipline in the armed 
forces of the sending State. The last paragraph provides expressly 
that in certain cases the sending State may waive its right to exer- 
cise jurisdiction. 

23. The French Representative suggested that the sending State 
should give official notification of the cases in which they were pre- 
pared to waive their right to exercise jurisdiction. Thus the receiving 
State would have assurance that their courts would have jurisdiction 
over certain offenses which, according to the provisions of paragraphs 
4(a) and (b), would otherwise be within the jurisdiction of the 
sending State. 

24. The United States Representative regretted that he could not 
give such a list. 

25. After discussion it was agreed to keep in its entirety the text 
of the draft submitted by the United States Representative, with the 
exception of the amendments contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 
above. 

26. The Portuguese Representative reserved the position of his 
Government on this subject. 

27. The Chairman recalled that the views expressed in the course 
of this discussion did not in any way commit Governments ; the draft 
Agreement would be before Governments at a later stage, after a 
new text had been prepared. 



103 

MS(J)-R(51) 5 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 17 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Article VI of the Draft. 1 

Article VI, par. 4 (new par. 3) 

1. The Netherlands Representative raised the question whether the 
text of Article VI provided that it was the duty of the mmbers of a 
force to respect the police regulations of the receiving State and, for 
example, to obey orders given by the local police. 

2. The Chairman 2 drew the attention of the Working Group to 
paragraph 6 of Article VI, which provided that the authorities of 
the receiving and sending States would assist each other in the arrest 
of offenders in the territory of the receiving State, etc. He thought 
that this paragraph covered the point raised by the Netherlands 
Representative. 

3. In reply to a further question raised by the Netherlands Repre- 
sentative, the Chairman also pointed out that it would be for the 
sending State to decide whether the members of a force were on 
official duty or not. This was part of the normal cooperation be- 
tween allies. 

4. The Norwegian Representative recalled the proposal which had 
been made at the previous meeting by the Danish Representative to 
the effect that a proviso should be added in paragraph 4 stating that 
the sending State would give sympathetic consideration to any re- 
quest by the receiving State that they should waive the right to exer- 
cise jurisdiction in cases to which the receiving State attached par- 
ticular importance. Such a proviso would facilitate the adoption of 
the final document by the respective Parliaments. 

5. After some discussion, it was agreed that the text of paragraph 
4 (new paragraph 3) should be amended in accordance with a pro- 
posal of the United States Representative. 

6. The Subcommittee : 

(1) agreed to add the following words to the end of the last 
subparagraph of paragraph 4 (new paragraph 3) : "The 
sending State will give sympathetic consideration to a re- 
quest for waiver in cases which the receiving State considers 
to be of particular importance." 

i Reference: MS-D(51) 5 (12 February 1951). 

2 The Chairman at this fifth meeting of the Juridical Subcommittee was Brig. 
Gen. C. E. Snow, United States Representative. 



104 

Article VI, par. 5 (new) 

7. The Chairman proposed that the following text should be in- 
cluded as a new paragraph 5 : "Where a primary right of jurisdiction 
has been exercised by the authorities of a Contracting Party, a trial 
of the accused by such authorities shall preclude the subsequent trial 
for the same offence by the authorities of another Contracting Party." 

8. The text of this paragraph submitted by the United States Dele- 
gation covered the case of conviction or acquittal, but would not 
apply if it had not been possible to collect sufficient evidence to pros- 
ecute. In that event, the authorities of another Contracting Party 
could prosecute again for the same offense. 

9. The Belgian Representative stated that he could not accept the 
text prepared by the United States Delegation. In a case where a 
Belgian delinquent was convicted by a French court but escaped 
before having served his sentence, the Belgian authorities would no 
longer be entitled to prosecute the delinquent in question a second 
time. The delinquent would accordingly enjoy immunity, in view of 
the fact that the extradition of Belgian nationals was not authorized 
in Belgium. 

10. Moreover, the Belgian Representative pointed out that a sim- 
ilar proposal had been considered superfluous when the Western 
Union Agreement was being drawn up. It had not been deemed 
necessary explicitly to include in the text of the Agreement a prin- 
ciple which was universally recognized, namely the principle of no 
double jeopardy. 

11. The Belgian Representative proposed the following text: 
"Where an accused has been tried by the authorities of the receiving 
State and has been acquitted, or has been convicted and has served 
his sentence, or if his sentence has expired by efflux of time or he has 
been pardoned, he may not be tried again for the same offence by 
the authorities of the sending State.'' 

12. The Italian Representative considered that it was necessary in 
this Agreement specifically to recall the principle of no double jeop- 
ardy, which normally applied only to jurisdiction within the terri- 
torial limits of one country. 

13. Furthermore, even in cases where the trial resulted in an ac- 
quittal, the Italian Representative could not approve the draft sub- 
mitted by the United States Delegation; it left the sending State 
the final right to take cognizance of offenses committed on the terri- 
tory of the receiving State. He was in favor of the draft submitted 
by the Belgian Delegation. 

14. The text submitted by the Belgian Representative was not 






105 

approved by the Subcommittee. A new draft submitted by the 
United States Representative was adopted which, while safeguarding 
the principle of no double jeopardy, guaranteed that no offense would 
go unpunished. 

15. The Subcommittee : 

(2) approved the following text of the new paragraph 3 : 
"Where an accused has been tried by the authorities of a 
Contracting Party and has been acquitted, or has been con- 
victed, and is serving or has served his sentence, he may not 
be tried again for the same offence within the territory of 
that Contracting Party by the authorities of another Con- 
tracting Party." 

Article VI, par. 6 

16. The French Representative said that there were three points 
on which he wished clarification, but that he would be satisfied with 
specific inclusions in the Summary Record and would not press for 
amendments. 

16a. First, if the military authorities of the sending State were to 
catch a man in the act of committing an offense against the laws of 
the receiving State, would they automatically hand him over to the 
police of the receiving State? The Subcommittee agreed that the 
military authorities should do this. 

16b. Second, if the police of the receiving State call the attention 
of the military authorities of the sending State to disorders caused 
by forces outside camps, would the military authorities, through the 
military police, heed such representations and take all possible ac- 
tion? The Subcommittee agreed that the military authorities should 
do this. 

16c. The Brussels Treaty Agreement, in Article 7, par. 5(c), made 
specific provision for the entry of police into military camps, but 
this provision had been omitted in the United States draft. The 
French Representative did not want any legend of extraterritoriality 
to grow up, but thought that there must be some agreement between 
the police and the force. 

16d. The United States Representative said that the Brussels 
Treaty Article had been intentionally omitted to avoid a conflict of 
jurisdiction. He said that the police should work through the camp 
commander and not have an absolute right of entry to a camp. He 
said that this point was covered in the Anglo-American agreement 
on exchange of forces, which he quoted: 

No arrest of a member of a force or civilian component shall be 

made, and no process civil or criminal shall be served on any such 



106 

person, within any camp, establishment or station, except with the 
permission of the Commanding Officer in charge of such establish- 
ment or station ; but should the Commanding Officer refuse to grant 
such permission, he shall, except in cases where the sending State 
is to exercise jurisdiction, forthwith take the necessary steps to 
arrest the person charged and surrender him to the appropriate 
authorities of the receiving State, or to serve such process, as the 
case may be, and to provide for the attendance of the person on 
whom such process has been served before the appropriate court 
of the receiving State or to procure the said person to make the 
necessary affidavit or declaration to prove such service. The ex- 
pression "process" includes a summons, subpoena, warrant, writ or 
other judicial document for securing the attendance of a witness, 
or for the production of any documents or exhibits, required in 
any proceedings, civil or military. 

16e. The United States Representative explained that this did not 
of course apply to nationals of the receiving State. He asked whether 
the French Representative wished some such statement included in 
the Agreement. The French Representative said that he would be 
satisfied if the text quoted by the United States Representative was 
reproduced in the Summary Record. 

16f. The Italian Representative also concurred, though he wished 
to make the point that only authorized persons should be allowed to 
live in camps. 

16g. The Danish Representative asked whether it would be practi- 
cal to redraft the subparagraph in such a way as to include the pos- 
sibility of a local agreement between the police and military authori- 
ties. After discussion, he concurred in the procedure to which the 
French Representative had agreed. 

16h. The Netherlands Representative asked whether a statement 
could not be included to ensure that the results of trials and enquiries 
were communicated to interested parties. This was agreed. 

17. The Subcommittee : 

(3) agreed to take note of the three points, and the answers 
thereto, as raised by the French Representative ; 

(4) agreed to add at the end of paragraph 6 : "The authorities 
of the Contracting Parties shall notify one another of the 
results of all investigations and trials in cases in which 
there is concurrent jurisdiction." 

Article VI, par. 7 

18. The Norwegian Representative said that he thought that the 
exclusion of the word "public" from the phrase "a prompt and speedy 



107 

public trial," although understandable on grounds of security, might 
be misunderstood. He thought it stated a valuable principle and 
noted that it occurred in the Council of Europe Convention on 
Human Rights. He suggested that subparagraph (a) might read: 
". . . and public trial, provided that the public may be excluded for 
reasons of security and for other reasons laid down by law." 

19. The French Representative pointed out that there were certain 
stages, notably "instruction," when the hearing was not public in 
French procedure. It was for this reason that the word had been 
omitted. 

20. After discussion of the points raised, it was decided not to 
amend this subparagraph. 

21. The United Kingdom Representative said that he wished to 
raise a point in connection with subparagraph (g). The present 
wording appeared to imply a right for a governmental representative 
to be present. He said that, when a case was to be heard in camera 
in a British court, the judge decided for himself who should or who 
should not be present. He might decide not to permit the govern- 
mental representative to remain. Since the judge could be warned of 
the undesirability of such a course, this was unlikely, but possible. 

22 r This apparent "obligation" was disliked by several delegations, 
notably the Portuguese and the Italian, since it implied a slight on 
the judicature of sovereign countries which for prestige reasons could 
not be tolerated. The Italian Representative suggested a redraft in 
the sense that "warning would be given by the authorities to the 
authorities of the sending State so that they could follow all phases 
of the legal proceedings." 

23. The Canadian Representative mentioned the position of con- 
sular officers and suggested the addition of a phrase to subparagraph 
(f ) so that it could cover governmental representatives. 

24. The French Representative said that this was also open to 
objection, since interpreters could be present at the "instruction" 
phase while governmental representatives could not. He preferred to 
leave the Article as it stood, since it was at least precise. 

25. The Canadian Representative suggested that all points of view 
would be met by adding to subparagraph (f) the words: "and when 
the rules of the court permit, to the presence of a representative of 
his Government." This was agreed by the Subcommittee. 

26. The Portuguese Representative pointed out that subparagraph 
(d), relating to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, could not 
be applied in his country since there was no legislation providing 
for it. 

27. The Danish Representative said that, while the defendant was 



108 

covered in the matter of obtaining compulsory witnesses by subpara- 
graph (f), the prosecution was not. 

28. It was pointed out (and the Chairman asked that this should 
be included in the Record) that this point was covered by paragraph 
6 of the Article where the receiving State already had legislation 
providing for compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. 

29. The Netherlands Representative asked whether subparagraph 
(e) implied that a qualified advocate or counsel was a necessity in all 
cases or only in major ones, which was the normal custom in his 
country. 

30. The Norwegian Representative said that he had read the sub- 
paragraph as meaning that legal aid should be provided and paid for 
by the receiving State in all cases. 

31. The Chairman said, for the record, that this was not the case, 
and that payment would be made according to the law of the receiv- 
ing State in such cases where legal aid was asked for. 

32. The Subcommittee agreed : 

(5) not to amend subparagraph (a) ; 

(6) to take note of the situation regarding compulsory process 
for obtaining witnesses, as set out in paragraphs 26-28 
above ; 

(7) to take note of the ruling made by the Chairman as to the 
intention of subparagraph (e), as explained by him in 
paragraph 31 above; 

(8) to amend subparagraph (f) to read: "if he considers it 
necessary, to the services of a competent interpreter, and 
when the rules of the court permit, to the presence of a 
representative of his Government ; 

(9) to delete subparagraph (g). 

Article VI, par. 8 

33. The Subcommittee : 

(10) agreed that the present text was satisfactory. 

Article VI, par. 9 

34. The United Kingdom Representative questioned the necessity 
for the paragraph at all and pointed out that it could, as it stood, be 
invoked whether there were any forces in a receiving State or not. 
He askecHfor its deletion or, failing that, that there should be agree- 
ment by both parties that legislation was necessary. 

35. The Canadian Representative suggested that the first phrase 
should be redrafted to read : "Each Contracting Party will seek such 






109 

legislation as it deems necssary to . . . ." This received general ap- 
proval and was adopted. 

36. The Norwegian Representative suggested that mention should 
be made of legislation which would compel witnesses to appear before 
courts set up by the sending State in cases which fell within their 
jurisdiction. 

37. The Danish Representative said that a reciprocal provision 
should also be included, but the French Representative opposed fur- 
ther alteration of the text, since it would probably only lead to Parlia- 
mentary difficulties if it appeared that instructions were being given 
as to what Parliament should do; and if the Norwegian proposal 
alone were adopted, it would be assumed that reciprocal action was 
not proposed, which would cause further trouble. He suggested that, 
if the record contained a statement to the effect that legislation was 
necessary, this would suffice. This was agreed. 

38. The Subcommittee : 

(11) agreed that the first phrase of the paragraph should be 
redrafted to read : "Each Contracting Party will seek such 
legislation as it deems necessary " ; 

(12) agreed that it was their general understanding that coun- 
tries would legislate as necessary in order to allow courts 
to be set up by the military authorities of the sending State 
in a receiving State. 

Article VI, par. 10 



39. The Chairman said that the United States Delegation had 
decided to withdraw this paragraph, as the whole question of condi- 
tions in wartime was being dealt with separately. 

//. Other Bminess. 

40. The Canadian Representative said that he thought that dele- 
gations should consider taking steps to have legislation enabling 
troops of one State to be put under the operational control of another. 

41. The Subcommittee : 

(13) agreed that this was a matter for consideration by Govern- 
ments in the future. 

42. The Norwegian Representative reverted to Article VI, par. 1, 
and asked that the words "in the territory of the receiving State" 
should be amended by the deletion of the words "in the territory." 

43. The Subcommittee : 

1(14) agreed that this matter should be left to the drafting com- 
mittee but saw no objection in principle to the deletion of 
these words. 



110 

MS(J)-R(51) 6 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 22 February 1951 

/. Introduction} 

1. The Chairman proposed that the meeting should re-examine the 
text of the Agreement as set out in MS-D(51) 11 (R) and explained 
that this document was the work of the drafting committee. The 
majority of the changes to which he would draw attention were 
drafting changes, but in a few instances the drafting committee had 
thought it preferable to make amendments of substance, which could 
now be discussed. 

II. Articles I-VI of the Redraft. 

2. On Articles I-VI there was little to note beyond drafting points, 
such as the addition of the words "in connexion with the operation of 
the North Atlantic Treaty" in the definition of a "force" in Article I. 
In Article IV the reference to the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic 
was omitted, since it was not certain that this would come into force 
throughout the NATO area because some States might not ratify it. 
In Article VI, the second sentence of paragraph 1 had been added to 
meet the position of the Danish Representative. It was agreed how- 
ever that it was difficult to imply any obligation to submit requests to 
to carry arms, nor would orders which instructed troops to carry arms 
always be in writing, and they could not therefore be shown to the 
authorities of the receiving State. 

///. Article VII. 

Article VII, par. 1, 3 

3. The Chairman said that this Article on jurisdiction had been 
rearranged in a new and, he hoped, more understandable form. He 
drew attention to the redraft submitted by the Portuguese Repre- 
sentative, 2 the effect of which would be to give greater powers to the 
receiving State and less to the military authorities of the sending 
State. More specifically, it would transfer the powers referred to in 
paragraph 3(a) (ii) to paragraph 3(b). The Chairman said that, in 
his view, if a just balance was not struck between the powers exer- 



l Reference: MS-D(51) 11 (R) (20 February 1951), as supplemented by two 
Addenda of 22 February 1951 : see Note 1 to that document. 
2MS-D(51) 13 (20 February 1951). 



Ill 

cised by each party, there would be endless trouble and no coopera- 
tion. He hoped that this could be avoided by keeping to the present 
text. 

4. The Portuguese Representative said that the redraft of the 
Article contained in MS-D(51) 13 was the result of an interdepart- 
mental meeting of experts held in Lisbon, who used the United States 
draft, D-D (51) 23, as the basis for their work. It represented his 
Government's view of how the substance of that paper could be inter- 
preted within the framework of Portuguese legislation and their 
Constitution. He stressed that his Government has not been in posses- 
sion of amendments made later to the United States draft and that, 
in the view of his Government, it was essential that they should have 
the opportunity for detailed study of the text later on. 

5. The Chairman, after thanking the Portuguese Representative 
for his statement, stressed once more that the final document which 
the Working Group would produce was still only a draft and would 
not commit Governments. He envisaged submitting a document in 
the following week to the Deputies, who would then pass it for full 
study to Governments. He hoped the draft would prove acceptable, 
but said that if Governments had comments on the text it miorht be 
necessary to reconvene the Working Group later. 

Article VII, par. 2 

6. The Canadian Representative asked that the word "exercise" 
should replace "have" in the first sentence. The Chairman pointed 
out that this would compel a sending State to take action in such 
cases and suggested a new phrase in both subparagraphs to meet this 
point. 

7. The Subcommittee : 

(1) agreed that the wording should read: "shall have the right 
to exercise exclusive jurisdiction" in both subparagraphs. 

Article VII, par. 4 

8. The Norwegian Representative said that he was satisfied with 
paragraph 4 regarding the death penalty, which represented his mini- 
mum demands. He was supported in this by the Portuguese Repre- 
sentative, who said that capital punishment had been abolished in his 
country in 1867 and that there had in fact been no executions for 
105 years. 

Article VII, par. 5 

9. There was a technical difficulty in paragraph 5, subparagraph 3, 
that in the United Kingdom the word "arraignment" did not refer to 



112 

the first stage in a judicial process. It was therefore decided to use 
the word "charged." 

10. The Belgian Representative said that his Government could 
not allow a force to hold a Belgian national under arrest, which ap- 
peared to be envisaged in the present draft. 

11. The general feeling of the Subcommittee was that this Agree- 
ment referred specifically to "forces and civilian components" and 
that civilians were not covered. To avoid any confusion however, the 
word "offenders" in the first subparagraph was replaced by "members 
of the force or civilian component." 

Article VII, par. 7 

12. The Netherlands Representative said that one case not provided 
for in this paragraph was when, for instance, an American soldier 
injured a Belgian in transit through his country on his way, say to 
Holland. If the American force held a court-martial in Holland, the 
soldier, although he could not be tried by the Netherlands authorities, 
could be tried by the Belgians if they got hold of him. 

13. The Subcommittee : 

(2) agreed that the position was as stated by the Netherlands 
Representative but hoped that in practice no such case 
would arise, since the soldier would probably be tried in the 
country where the witnesses, etc., were, as a matter of 
convenience. 

Article VII, par. 9 

14. The Canadian Representative said that he wished to clarify cer- 
tain points relating to the powers of military police within camps. 
His understanding was that this paragraph did not of itself confer 
authority on the military police of a sending State to arrest nationals 
of the receiving State whom they might find in their camps. 

15. The French Representative said that he wished to make it clear 
that the paragraph did not in any way diminish the powers of the 
police of the receiving State by granting some form of extrater- 
ritorial rights within camps. 

16. After discussion, it was agreed that the object of the first sub- 
paragraph was to limit the jurisdiction of military police to camps, 
and that of the second subparagraph was to make it clear that, out- 
side camps, military police should operate by arrangement with the 
local authorities. 

17. The Subcommittee : 

(3) agreed that the following understanding should be recorded : 
Paragraph 9 is not, of itself, intended to confer authority 



Q 



111 

on the military police of the sending State to arrest na- 
tionals of the receiving State, but it does not affect in any 
way the general right of the police of any State to exercise 
their authority throughout the territory of that State. 

MS(J)-R(51) 7 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 22 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Article VIII of the Draft Agreement. 1 

Article VIII, par. 1 

1. The Chairman explained the sense of the Article as at present 
drafted and said that, if there should be any dispute whether an acci- 
dent occurred in the course of NATO duty or not, this point should 
be settled within the terms of Article XVI. 

2. The Danish Representative pointed out that an accident such as 
the crash of an airplane on an ammunition dump might result in a 
very heavy increase in the defense burden of a State. After discus- 
sion of this, the general feeling of the Subcommittee was that such 
accidents were the price to be paid for having a Treaty. 

3. The Netherlands Representative reserved the position of his 
Government in the matter of collisions, etc., at sea. He thought that 
they would only permit the application of the Agreement to warships 
and within territorial waters. 

4. The Norwegian Representative, supported by the Danish Repre- 
sentative, proposed that the first paragraph should be amended so as 
to exclude cases where the damage was not caused in pursuance of 
official duty. At the suggestion of the Chairman, the first paragraph 
was amended to meet this point. 

5. The Canadian Representative said that he thought that salvage 
claims by Service Ministries could with advantage be included within 
the scope of the present Agreement. He said that such a waiver 
already operated insofar as his country and the United States were 
concerned. In this he was supported by the United States Repre- 
sentative, and an appropriate sentence was added to the paragraph 
with the agreement of the Subcommittee. 

6. The Subcommittee : 

(1) agreed that the first sentence should read: ". . . caused by a 
member or employee of the armed forces of any other Con- 

ki References : MS-D(51) 11 (R), with the text of Article VIII as inserted by 
the Addendum of 22 February 1951 ; MS-D(51) 6. 



114 

trading Party, provided that such damage was caused by 
such member or employee in the execution of his duties in 
connexion with the North Atlantic Treaty." 

(2) agreed that the following sentence should be added : "Claims 
for salvage by the respective Service Ministries are simi- 
larly waived." 

Article VIII, par. 2 

7. The Subcommittee : 

(3) agreed on the figures corresponding to £500, which should 
be inserted in the second subparagraph ; 

(4) agreed to delete the reference to an exchange of letters. 

Article VIII, par. 4 

8. The Subcommittee discussed the applicability of this Article in 
the event of hostilities. The United States Representative said that 
his Government could not possibly permit paragraphs 2 and 4 to be 
applicable to war damage and for that reason had added the phrase 
"not incident to combat" in paragraph 4. He was however inclined 
to think that it should also be added in paragraph 2. 

9. The Chairman said that he hoped the outbreak of hostilities 
would not necessarily result in the abrogation of the present Agree- 
ment. He thought that the greater part of it would still be valid 
though, as the United States Representative had pointed out, parts 
would have to be suspended. 

10. The Netherlands Representative proposed that, once the text 
was completed, it should be reviewed in order to see which of its pro- 
visions could not be accepted in time of war. 

11. The Subcommittee : 

(5) agreed to proceed as proposed by the Netherlands Repre- 
sentative ; 

(6) agreed, at the request of the Belgian Representative, to 
amend the first sentence to read "loss or destruction of the 
property of persons or oodles, other than the Contracting 
Parties" since "private persons" was not a suitable phrase 
because of the existence of bodies other than the State. 

Article VIII, par. 4(e) 

12. The Subcommittee had before them three proposals for the 
distribution of claims : 

(a) the United States proposal in the original draft; 



115 

(b) the first French proposal (Fl), incorporated in MS-D(51) 
11(E); 

(c) the second French proposal (F2), as set out in MS-D(51) 6. 

13. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom was, in principle, 
in favor of F2, and he invited the comments of other Representatives. 
These were subject in most cases to a reservation that the Representa- 
tive had not received final instructions. 

(a) Belgium. No instructions. 

(b) Canada. Retained an open mind; while he agreed to con- 
sider F2, he did not wish to ignore Fl. 

(c) Denmark. Preferred the United States proposal, but was 
prepared to accept either French proposal but not the figure 
of 3% for distribution. 

(d) Italy. Preferred F2, though without ruling out Fl, although 
the figure of 7% was, he thought, too high. 

(e) Luxembourg. Would probably be prepared to follow the 
majority. If F2 were adopted, he would however have to 
ask for a ceiling on which his country could pay. If Fl 
were adopted, he wished Belgium and Luxembourg to be 
considered separately. 

(f) Netherlands. He thought his Government would prefer Fl 
and that they would accept 5% as their share. 

(g) Norway. In the absence of instructions he reserved his posi- 
tion as regards the percentage of distribution. 

(h) Portugal. Said that his country's views were as stated in 
MS-D(51) 14. 

(i) United States. Naturally preferred the United States pro- 
posal, but said that he had referred Fl and F2 to his 
Government with a recommendation to accept one or the 
other, though he personally preferred Fl. 

(j) France. Opposed firmly to the United States proposal, but 
willing to accept either Fl or F2. First preference for Fl 
since it was already well understood by the Brussels Powers, 
but had proposed F2 as a means of avoiding delay in reach- 
ing agreement on the question of percentages. 

14. The Chairman said that he saw a certain preponderance of 
support for F2, and he asked the Netherlands Representative whether 
he would object to its inclusion in the text in place of Fl. The 
Netherlands Representative agreed and said that, after hearing what 
other delegations had said, he was prepared to recommend F2 to his 
Government. 

15. The United States Representative drew attention to the special 
position of Iceland which, he said, under F2 would have to bear 25% 



116 

of the damage caused there by United States troops. It was agreed 
that, as Iceland had no forces of her own, there could be no reciprocal 
treatment and that she must be treated as a special case. 
16. The Subcommittee : 

(7) agreed to reconsider F2 the following day, with a view to 
including its text in the Agreement. 

MS(J)-R(51) 8 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 23 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Article VIII of the Draft Agreement. 1 

Article VIII, par. 4(e) 

1. The Subcommittee proceeded to the consideration of MS-D(51) 
6 as a replacement for paragraph 4(e) in MS-D(51) 11(E). 

la. The United States Representative said the word "claim" was 
wrongly used the second time in (i) of MS-D(51) 6. He suggested, 
and it was agreed, that the phrase "the amount awarded and taxable 
costs" should replace "claim and sundry charges." 

2. The Subcommittee then considered in detail the various schemes 
for apportionment of the cost of claims, and the following points 
were brought out. 

(a) The cost of 25% to the receiving State was intended as a 
deterrent both as to the number of claims filed and as to 
their size. 

(b) This seemed a fair figure, though from 20% to 30% was 
suggested. 

(c) There should be account taken of the responsibility of the 
receiving State for the damage. Otherwise, in an accident 
where several sending States were involved, the receiving 
State though not responsible might have to bear a far larger 
burden than sending States who were responsible. 

(d) In case a claim should be of such a size as to cause serious 
hardship to a small country, there should be a right of 
appeal to the North Atlantic Treaty Council. 

3. In order to meet all these points, the Subcommittee agreed : 

(1) to redraft (i) of MS-D(51) 6 to read: "Where one sending 
State alone is responsible, the amount awarded and taxable 
costs shall be distributed in the proportion of 25% charge- 



i Reference: MS-D(5l) 11 (R), with the text of Article VIII as inserted by 
the Addendum of 22 February 1951 ; MS-D(51) 6. 



117 

able to the receiving State and 75% chargeable to the send- 
ing State." 

(2) to redraft (ii) of MS-D(51) 6 to read: "Where more than 
one sending State is responsible for the damage, the amount 
awarded and taxable costs shall be distributed equally 
among them: however, if the receiving State is not one of 
the States responsible, its contribution shall be half that of 
each of the sending States." 

(3) to add a new subparagraph as follows: "In cases where the 
burden imposed on any Contracting Party by this Article 
causes it serious hardship, it may request the Council to 
arrange an adjustment of its liability." 

(4) to delete subparagraph (iv) of MS-D(51) 6 as being 
unnecessary. 

(5) to transfer the existing subparagraph (iii) of MS-D(51) 6 
to form a new subparagraph 4(e) of MS-D(51) 11(11), 
and to renumber 4(e) and 4(f) as 4(f) and 4(g). 

Article VIII, par. 4(g) 

4. The Belgian Representative asked for clarification of this, and 
the Chairman explained that it was put in to make it quite clear that, 
even if an individual member of a force had to appear in a court case 
arising out of his official duties and was ordered to pay costs, any 
further action must be against the sending State and the judgment 
could not be pressed against the individual. It was intended purely 
as a safeguard. 

MS(J)-R(51) 9 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status 
(Juridical Subcommittee), 23 February 1951 

/. Consideration of Articles VIII-XX of the Draft Agreement. 1 

Article VIII, par. 5 

1. The Belgian Representative asked why the phrase "other than 
contractual claims," used in paragraph 4, had been omitted, 
la. The Subcommittee : 

(1) agreed to leave the wording as it was, since the type of 
claims to which it referred could hardly be contractual. 



i Reference: MS-D(51) 11 (R), with the text of Article VIII as inserted by 
the Addendum of 22 February 1951. 



118 



Article VIII, par. 7 



2. The Danish Representative raised the question of paternity 
claims, and the United States Representative asked whether divorce 
was covered by the terms of this paragraph. 

3. The Chairman said that whether divorce was covered depended 
on the law of the receiving State. In the United Kingdom it would 
not be. 

4. The Subcommittee : 

(2) agreed to delete the existing paragraph and to replace it by : 
"The sending State shall not claim immunity from the 
jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving State for members 
of a force or civilian component in respect of claims not 
covered by the provisions of the preceding paragraphs." 

Articles IX-X 

5. The Subcommittee : 

(3) agreed to the revised text of these Articles, subject to minor 
textual alterations. 

Article XI, par. 4 

6. The Chairman said that, by adding the words "and its civilian 
component" to the first sentence, the drafting committee had made an 
amendment of substance which the United Kingdom authorities could 
not accept. While they were prepared to accord privileges to the 
authorities of a force to import supplies, etc., duty-free for the force 
and civilians subject to military law, they could not extend such a 
privilege to ordinary civilians. To do so would place them in the 
same category as diplomats. 

7. The United States Representative said that his country's forces 
invariably ran a Commissary and Post Exchange (PX) at which 
members of the force, the civilian component and their dependents 
would trade. It was unthinkable that they would do otherwise; and 
if the words "and its civilian component" were left out, a supple- 
mentary bilateral agreement would have to be negotiated. 

8. In discussion the following points were made: 

(a) Only the force could give orders who might use its PX, 
canteen, etc. 

(b) The quantities imported for the civilian component would 
be relatively insignificant compared with the requirements 
of the force. 

(c) If civilian component were omitted from the text of the 
Agreement, it would be unfair and they would get their 



119 

supplies somehow. (It was pointed out that this would 
involve a breach of Article II). 
(d) To leave the civilian component out of the Agreement might 
lead to administrative misunderstandings and create diffi- 
culties for customs authorities who needed clear instructions. 

9. The Subcommittee : 

(4) agreed, at the Chairman's request, to defer consideration of 
this point till the plenary meeting on 27 February 1951, by 
which time he would have had an opportunity to seek fur- 
ther instructions. 

Article XI, par. 5 

10. The Chairman explained that, owing to a misunderstanding in 
the drafting committee as to the interpretation of the words "new 
furniture," the last sentence was superfluous. 

11. The Subcommittee : 

(5) agreed to delete the last three words of the first sentence 
and the whole of the second. 

Articles XII-XIV 

12. The Subcommittee : 

(6) agreed to the revised texts of these Articles, subject to minor 
textual alterations. 

Article XV 

13. The French Representative said that so far as possible the 
Agreement should be equally valid — with, of course, a few amend- 
ments — in time of war. He raised the question of what was under- 
stood by the term "war" in modern times and quoted the cases of 
Indochina and Korea. A definition had to be written into the Agree- 
ment which was easily understood. 

14. He then said that there were three categories of provisions 
within or without this Agreement which had to be considered : 

(a) those matters which could be left as they were in time of 
peace ; 

(b) those arrangements which could not be presented to Parlia- 
ment and were therefore excluded from the Agreement as 
drafted, and which would have to remain military secrets; 

(c) those provisions which could only be decided upon after 
an outbreak of war, which depended solely on the condi- 
tions obtaining at that time. 

He pointed out that it would be much easier to obtain Parlia- 
mentary ratification if Ministers could give an assurance that, except 



120 

for a few articles which would have to be suspended in effect, the 
remainder of the Agreement would continue in wartime. 

15. The Danish Representative said that he had definite instruc- 
tions from his Government that the Agreement should continue in 
effect after an outbreak of war. 

16. The Canadian Representative suggested that the Article could 
be rewritten in such a way as to limit the articles in the Agreement 
which would immediately have to be suspended or reviewed on the 
outbreak of war. 

17. The Italian Representative said that the Working Group was 
charged with drafting an Agreement to regulate the status of forces 
in peacetime. It seemed to be generally agreed by the Subcommittee, 
however, that it would be unrealistic if all reference to wartime were 
omitted. 

18. After a short review of the whole Agreement, the French 
Representative said that he thought that only Articles VII and VIII, 
and possibly III insofar as it referred to immigration regulations, 
might have to be redrawn. 

19. The Chairman proposed a new draft first paragraph, with the 
consequent renumbering of the existing paragraph as paragraph 2. 

20. The Subcommittee : 

(7) agreed that the Article should be amended to read as 
follows : 

"1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article, this Agreement 
shall remain in force in the event of hostilities to which the 
North Atlantic Treaty applies, except that Article VIII shall 
not apply to war damage, and the provisions of the Agreement, 
and in particular of Articles III and VII, shall immediately 
be reviewed by the Contracting Parties concerned who may 
agree to such modifications as they may consider desirable 
regarding the application of the Agreement between them. 
"2. In the event of such hostilities, each of the . . ." 

Articles XVI-XVII 

21. The French Representative enquired whether Article XVI pre- 
vented the reference of a dispute to the International Court of Justice 
at The Hague. 

22. The Chairman said that this was so, unless all parties agreed 
to do so. 

23. The Subcommittee : 

(8) approved Articles XVI and XVII. 



121 



Article XVIII 



24. The Canadian Representative said that, pending ratification of 
the Agreement, he hoped that all signatories would press ahead with 
its implementation wherever this was possible by administrative 
methods. 

25. Most Representatives felt that such a course might lead to 
parliamentary difficulties in their own countries. It was agreed, 
however, that it was important to get the Agreement working as 
soon as possible. 

26. The Subcommittee : 

(9) agreed that, in presenting the Working Group's report to 
the Deputies, the Chairman should stress the importance of 
asking that Governments should take administrative action, 
where this was proper, to hasten the putting into effect of 
the Agreement. 

Article XIX 

27. The Subcommittee : 

(10) agreed to approve this Article. 

//. Further Comments on A rticle III of the Draft. 2 

28. The Chairman apologized for reverting to this Article but said 
that he was under instructions to press for certain amendments, 
notably the deletion of civilian components from the list of those for 
whom passport and immigration regulations would be waived. He 
said that it had been agreed earlier that Article III would have to be 
immediately reviewed on the outbreak of war for this very reason. 
He therefore saw considerable advantage in insisting that all 
civilians, whether members of a civilian component or dependents, 
should have passports. If they wished to travel outside the NATO 
area to Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, etc., they would in any event 
need passports. 

29. The French Representative said that he had broadly similar 
instructions. 

30. The Chairman said that it would be necessary for the purposes 
of the Agreement, to enable these people to enjoy their privileges, 
that they should be accurately described in their passports. He pro- 
posed the addition of a suitable paragraph to this effect. 

31. The Chairman said that he had a further amendment to add 
about members of a force or civilian component who left their em- 



2Reference: MS-D(51) 11(R) (20 February 1951) 



122 

ployment while in a receiving State. He asked permission to draft a 
suitable paragraph for consideration by the plenary meeting of the 
Working Group. 

32. The Subcommittee : 

(11) agreed to the Chairman's proposal. 

D-R(51) 11 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 19 Febru- 
ary 1951. 

/. Agreement on the Status of the Armed Forces of the North At- 
lantic Treaty. 

1. Mr. Lambert, Chairman of the Working Group on the Status of 
the Armed Forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Countries, gave a 
report on the progress so far made by the Working Group. 

2. He explained that before embarking on their study of the prob- 
lem the Working Group had had to take into account a number of 
factors, the most important of which were as follows : 

(a) Whereas the Agreement on the status of members of the 
armed Forces of the Brussels Treaty Powers was limited 
to peacetime only, the Working Group had felt that it 
would be unrealistic in present circumstances to ignore the 
position which would obtain on the outbreak of hostilities. 
They had accordingly decided to prepare in the first place 
an agreement which would be applicable in peace, and then 
to consider whether the terms could without great difficulty 
be made applicable after the outbreak of hostilities. The 
Working Group had felt that to have an agreement which 
automatically terminated on the outbreak of hostilities 
would cause the maximum of inconvenience at a time of 
great pressure. It would be most desirable that countries 
should not be faced with the task of negotiating a fresh 
agreement at a time when it was imperative to have agreed 
arrangements in operation. It was the hope of the Working 
Group that the draft on which they would reach agreement 
would be of such a kind that it could continue in operation 
after the outbreak of hostilities and until such time as it 
proved necessary to re-examine the various provisions in 
the light of the experience gained of its operation. 

(b) The arrangements with regard to languages used in the 
various forms and documents had to be altered from those 
envisaged under the Brussels Treaty Agreement, and it was 



123 

hoped that final agreement would be reached on the use of 
the language of the sending State plus either French or 
English. 

(c) It was felt that the use of the word "foreign" was unsuitable 
in the NATO context and it had accordingly been elimi- 
nated. 

(d) Some difficulty had been experienced with regard to the 
precise definition of "war." Recent experience had shown 
that there were a number of forms of conflict not amounting 
to war, and it had accordingly been decided to adopt some 
more general term such as "hostilities." 

(e) Special provisions were being made to cover the civilian 
component of the Armed Forces of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Powers, whereas these had been omitted from the 
Brussels Treaty Agreement. 

3. In general, he hoped that the articles as finally agreed would be 
more positive than those of the Brussels Treaty Agreement. 

4. So far, Articles I-VI had reached an advanced state of agree- 
ment. Article VI (Jurisdiction) had proved to be difficult, and there 
had had to be a certain degree of give and take. Article VII (Claims) 
was also proving difficult, but in the light of recent discussions it was 
hoped that a compromise solution would be reached by the middle of 
the week. The remaining Articles, apart from Article IX on income 
tax and other matters relating to direct taxation, had also reached an 
advanced state of agreement and it was hoped that they would be 
cleared by the end of the week. 

5. In view of the progress which had already been made, it would 
be reasonable to hope that there would be an agreed Working Group 
draft for submission to the Deputies in the course of the following 
week. 

6. Mr. Lambert wished to place on record his thanks for the help 
and cooperation which he had received from all Representatives on 
the Working Group. It had, however, been clearly understood that, 
in agreeing to the text of any article or articles, Representatives were 
in no way committing their Governments. He hoped, however, that 
by the time the draft had been agreed there would be no points 
which were totally unacceptable to Governments. He wished to make 
it clear that certain provisions in the draft Agreement would cer- 
tainly require legislation on the part of a number of countries, and 
it was possible that this legislation might prove to be controversial. 
In drafting the Agreement, the Working Group had attempted to 
keep a reasonable balance between the interests of a sending State and 
those of a receiving State. Certain countries, however, particularly 



124 

Iceland, were more likely to be primarily a receiving or a sending 
State, and this might create difficulties in accepting the Agreement 
as a whole. 

7. The Canadian Deputy inquired what procedure would be fol- 
lowed when the Working Group had submitted their agreed draft. 

8. The Chairman said that it was his intention to place the draft 
Agreement on the Council Deputies agenda if it appeared evident 
that some advantage might be derived from a discussion around the 
table. Ultimately, however, Governments would have to decide 
whether or not they were prepared to accept the draft. Discussion by 
the Deputies might serve to narrow the possible field of disagreement, 
and in any case he hoped that the Deputies would be in a position to 
recommend the acceptance of the Agreement as a whole to their 
respective Governments. 

9. There was general agreement on the procedure suggested, several 
Deputies stressing that Ministers would have to be consulted. 

10. The Council Deputies : 

(1) thanked Mr. Lambert for his statement. 

(2) agreed to discuss the draft Agreement when complete, with 
a view to recommending its acceptance to Governments. 



MS-R(51) 5 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
27 February 1951 

/. General. 1 

1. The meeting had before it the text of the draft Agreement con- 
tained in MS-D(51) 11 (2nd Revise). At the suggestion of the 
Chairman it was decided to take the draft Article by Article. In the 
course of this examination a number of minor textual alterations were 
made, which are not noted in detail in this Summary Record, but 
which appear in the new text — D-D (51) 57. Amendments of sub- 
stance were, however, made as set out below. 

//. Article III. 

2. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom Government 
would like an addition to paragraph 4 to ensure that in the case of 
absences without leave the authorities of the receiving State should 
be notified after 21 days. It was agreed to include this provision. 



i Reference: MS-D(5l) 11 (2R) (24 February 1951). 



125 



///. Article VI. 



3. The Netherlands Representative asked the reason for the second 
paragraph authorizing officers always to retain their personal weap- 
ons. He thought that its purpose was to allow officers to keep their 
weapons in their homes without contravening laws regarding fire- 
arms. It was pointed out that an officer under arrest might be de- 
prived of his personal weapon and that if a force ordered that officers 
should keep their weapons with them at all times then paragraph 1 
was sufficient. 

4. The Working Group decided to delete paragraph 2 of Article 
VI. 

IV. Article VII. 

5. The Norwegian Representative asked whether paragraph 7 as 
drafted covered a case where a reprieve was granted before any sen- 
tence at all had been served. tJnder both Norwegian and Danish law 
if this happened the man convicted could in fact be tried again. 

6. The Working Group felt that the intention of the Article was 
quite clear, that a man should not be placed in double jeopardy and 
hoped that such cases as the Norwegian Representative envisaged 
would not, in practice, occur. 

V. Article VIII. 

7. The Chairman circulated an addition to the first paragraph 
which, he said, was intended to make the provisions of the Article 
reciprocal. It involved no new principle. The United States Repre- 
sentative said that he agreed with the draft and it was accepted by 
the Working Group. 

8. The Danish Representative raised again [the question] whether 
the sums paid out in claims should not be included in the overall 
defense budget. The feeling ot the Working Group was that they 
could not say what expenses should rank therein, but that such an 
agreement might eventually be made. They agreed that no mention 
of such a possibility could be included in the text of the Agreement 
now, however. 

9. The Working Group considered that subparagraph 4(e) would 
be better placed at the end of the Article as a separate paragraph 
since it did not apply only to the provisions of paragraph 4. 

10. The Luxembourg Representative proposed a rewording of 
paragraph 4(f) (iv). He said that the present wording was too 
limited and he suggested that "a settlement of a different nature" 
should be substituted for "an adjustment of its liability." This was 
agreed. 



126 



MS-R(51) 6 



Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
27 February 1951 

/. Article VIII of the Draft Agreement. 1 

1. The Belgian Representative asked for clarification whether the 
Working Group were firmly wedded to the method for settling claims 
as set out in paragraph 4(f) or whether there was still a possibility 
of a return to the first French proposal for a settlement on a per- 
centage basis. 

2. The Chairman explained for what reasons the Group had de- 
cided to substitute the present proposal, stressing in particular the 
advantage of not having to negotiate exact percentages, which would 
in any case need to be revised whenever a new party acceded to the 
North Atlantic Treaty. This did not, of course, lie explained, prevent 
Governments from expressing a preference for the percentage pro- 
posal, though he hoped that they would not do so. 

3. The Netherlands Representative asked whether it would be pos- 
sible for States to agree bilaterally that claims between the receiving 
State and one sending State should be settled on a basis other than 
25-75. The Working Group felt that this figure represented a fair 
figure, but it might be best to reconsider it later in the light of 
Governmental comments. 

//. Article X. 

4. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom Government 
wished to include a paragraph as follows : 

"The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article are not appli- 
cable in relation to a member of a force who is a national of the 
receiving State." 

5. This was strongly opposed by the United States Representative 
on the ground that a soldier had no choice where he was posted and 
it would be most unjust if a British subject resident in the United 
States of America, who was serving in the United States forces, were 
taxed by both the United States and the United Kingdom when he 
was sent to Britain. The position was different in the case of civilians 
who were probably in a position to refuse an appointment if it was 
likely to involve them in double taxation. 

6. The Working Group agreed that this proposal should not appear 
in the text of the Agreement, but that the Chairman was at liberty to 
mention it in his report. 

i Reference (for all the Articles considered at this meeting): MS-D(51) 
11 (2R) (24 February 1951). 



127 

7. The Working Group agreed to add a paragraph defining "duty" 
in the same way as did paragraph 12 of Article XI. 

///. Article XI. 

8. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom Government were 
not disposed to agree unconditionally to the sale of duty-free goods 
to the civilian component and that they wished a permissive phrase 
inserted in the draft so that it would read: ". . . for the exclusive use 
of that force and, in cases where such use is permitted, of its civilian 
component." 

9. The United States Representative proposed that in view of this 
addition dependents also should be added and this was agreed. 

10. The Canadian Representative said that the Working Group 
had all but reached agreement on a multilateral basis and it seemed a 
pity to disagree now and insert unilateral provisions. He hoped that 
it was not intended to discriminate against any one State. 

11. The Chairman said that in so far as the United Kingdom was 
concerned the same treatment would be afforded to all forces in com- 
parable circumstances. 

IV. Article XV. 

12. The Working Group agreed that the phrasing of paragraph 1 
". . . except that Article VIII shall not apply to war damage" was 
rather wider in effect than had been intended and it was agreed to 
substitute a new phrase ". . . except that the provisions for settling 
claims in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of Article VIII shall not apply to 
war damages." 

V. Article XVI. 

13. The Netherlands Representative said that he thought the pres- 
ent phrase ". . . that there shall be no recourse to outside jurisdic- 
tion" was offensive in particular since it applied to the International 
Court of Justice, the supreme judicial authority within the United 
Nations framework. The North Atlantic Treaty had been drafted 
within United Nations Organization's framework, so that it seemed 
impossible to include such a provision. 

14. The Working Group agreed that it would be better to say 
"without recourse to outside jurisdiction." It would then be within 
the competence of the Council when a dispute reached them to refer 
it to the International Court if they were unable to reach agreement 
and if they thought this a wise thing to do. 



128 

VI. Reference to Governments and Further Meeting. 

15. The Chairman said that the Chairman of the Deputies had told 
him that he hoped to bring the Agreement before the Deputies at 
the end of the present week or on 5 March. Thereafter he hoped 
that Governments would study the Agreement as quickly as possible. 

16. In view of the fact that Easter occurred so soon the Working 
Group decided that comments should reach the Secretariat by 31 
March, who would circulate them and, should a further meeting be 
necessary, it would be held on 16 April. Earlier dates were called 
for by some Representatives, but it was felt that these were the earl- 
iest practicable ones, though the Deputies might rule otherwise. 

17. In presenting his report to the Deputies, the Chairman was 
asked to stress the point made by the Canadian Representative that 
once the Agreement had been signed Governments should take all 
possible and proper administrative steps to implement the Agree- 
ment without delay. 

VII. Applicability of the Draft Agreement to Troops on the Staff 
of SHAPE. 

18. The question was raised whether troops on the staff of SHAPE 
and other supranational bodies should come within the scope of this 
Agreement or that regulating the position of NATO international 
staff. The view was expressed that there was considerable advantage 
in this Agreement being applicable to such staff, but the Working 
Group did not feel that they could express an authoritative opinion. 
The French Representative, who was going to Paris, said that he 
would have consultations with officers of SHAPE and submit a report 
on the subject. He also agreed to mention to SHAPE the problem 
of operational command of troops of another nation and the possi- 
bility of SHAPE setting up supranational military courts. Both of 
these matters had been raised in the Working Group, but had been 
considered outside its competence. 

VIII. Closing Statements. 

19. The Chairman in closing the meeting expressed his gratitude 
to all his colleagues for their ready cooperation. He thought that the 
spirit of ready compromise had helped immensely in producing a 
draft which was remarkable for the measure of agreement reached. 
He thanked in particular the United States Representative for hav- 
ing produced a first draft, in the amendment of which he had been 
so accommodating, and the French Representative for his resource- 
fulness in presenting a solution of the apparently insoluble claims 
problem. 



129 

20. The United States Kepresentative thanked the Chairman and 
said that the Working Group had been lucky to have a Chairman 
of such ability and affability. 

D-R(51) 15 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 2 March 
1951 

/. Draft Agreement Between the Parties of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces. 1 

1. The Council Deputies had before them a report submitted by 
the Chairman of the Working Group covering a draft Agreement 
Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the 
Status of Their Forces. 2 

2. Mr. Lambert, the Chairman of the Working Group, said that 
the Working Group had made every effort to produce an Agreement 
which was in the main likely to be acceptable to all Contracting 
Parties. It had proved very difficult in certain instances to reconcile 
the interests of the sending and receiving States, and the Working 
Group appreciated that there were a number of provisions in the 
draft Agreement which might cause some Governments to have mis- 
givings. The discussions in the Working Group had always been 
conducted on the basis that Governments were not committed, but 
he hoped that in the event it would be found that Governments were 
substantially in accord with the draft. 

3. Mr. Lambert then drew attention to a number of specific points 
arising out of certain articles. 

(a) Article I 

An attempt had been made in this draft to cover certain categories 
of civilians which, though small in numbers, created certain difficul- 
ties. These civilians fell broadly into two main classes : 

(i) "the civilian component," i.e., civilian personnel in the employ 

of an armed service of a Contracting Party; 
(ii) "dependents," i.e., wives and children of members of a force 

or of a civilian component. 
Not all civilians were necessarily entitled either technically or mor- 
ally to precisely the same treatment, and varying provisions had 
been included in the different articles of the draft accordingly. 

i Previous reference: D-R(51) 11, par. 1-10 (19 February 1951). 
2 Reference: D-D (51) 57 (28 February 1951), containing the revised text 
of the Agreement and an accompanying report. 



130 



(b) Article II 



This represented an expansion of a principle which had been enun- 
ciated in the Brussels Treaty Agreement. The Working Group felt 
that it was of sufficient importance to merit a separate Article. The 
wording of this Article laid stress on the need for a full recognition 
by all members of a force and its civilian component and dependents 
of the need to respect the law of the receiving State. 

(c) Article III 

This was based on the similar provision in the Brussels Treaty 
Agreement, except that specific requirements for identity cards and 
other documents had been incorporated in the body of the Agreement 
instead of in an appendix. The inclusion of civilians in the Agree- 
ment had given rise to certain difficulties in this connection. It was 
the feeling of the Working Group generally that arrangements for 
these civilians could with advantage be subjected to further study 
with a view to coordination. As at present proposed, civilians would 
enter a receiving State under passport in the normal way. While 
there was no question of granting civilians any kind of diplomatic 
immunity, it was the hope of the Working Group that certain admin- 
istrative measures might be taken to reduce formalities to a minimum 
once entry had been effected. 

(d) Article VI 

The intention of the last sentence was to recognize that there may 
be special reasons why a receiving State should make representations 
to a sending State regarding the carrying of arms. Provided that 
good relations were established between the authorities of the sending 
and receiving State from the outset, there would appear to be no 
reason why requests of this nature should not be met. 

(e) Article VII 

This was one of the most difficult articles. The Working Group felt 
that the present text should satisfy the majority of Governments, 
though they realized the existence of some misgivings. These mis- 
givings had in the main been expressed by receiving States, who were 
anxious about the possible results of the presence in their midst of 
forces of sending States. In drafting this Article the Working Group 
had attempted to strike a balance, as far as possible, between the 
legitimate interests of the sending and receiving States. Paragraph 
1 of the Article set out two complementary provisions, namely : 



131 

(i) The military authorities of the sending State shall be en- 
titled to exercise full jurisdiction within the receiving State, 
conferred on them by their own military law, subject to 
certain provisions. This means in practice that the military 
authorities of a sending State could try offenders by court- 
martial and if necessary impose the death sentence. This 
provision was, however, subject to paragraph 4 of the Arti- 
cle, under which it was laid down that the death sentence 
would not be carried out in a State which did not have this 
penalty in its penal code. 

(ii) Conversely, the authorities of the receiving State shall have 
jurisdiction with respect to offenses committed within their 
own territory and punishable by the law of that State. This 
provision was in effect a statement of a principle which was 
already accepted. 

Paragraph 2 of the Article dealt with offenses which related to the 
law of the sending State only, and gave power to the military author- 
ities of the sending State to exercise jurisdiction in cases such as 
desertion. 

Paragraph 3 raised very delicate issues: it attempted to lay down 
certain rules to govern the procedure to be followed in cases where 
an offender stands in peril of either being court-martialed by the 
military authorities of his own forces or being brought before a court 
of criminal jurisdiction in the receiving State. The practical issue 
here was to decide what authority should deal with the case. In the 
course of discussion the view had been expressed that circumstances 
differed to such an extent that each case should be dealt with on its 
merits. It was the consensus of opinion, however, that such an atti- 
tude would lead to grave difficulties. It was in nobody's interest for 
an individual to be kept in custody pending the outcome of lengthy 
discussions on which authority should exercise jurisdiction. The im- 
portant thing was to dispose of the case rapidly. It had accordingly 
been decided to divide the cases roughly into two broad categories: 
the military authorities having the primary right of jurisdiction over 
one category, and the civil authorities of the receiving State the pri- 
mary right of jurisdiction over the other. These two categories were 
described in paragraph 3(a) and (b). Subparagraph 3(a) (ii) cov- 
ered offenses of particular difficulty. The words in square brackets 
had been left in pending clarification of the precise difference between 
the terms "in the performance of official duty" and "pursuant to a 
lawful order issued by the military authorities of that State." A 
typical example of a case which fell under this head was that of a 
member of a force who, while driving a service vehicle on duty, in- 



132 

flicts death or injury on a civilian in the receiving State as a result 
of a traffic accident. Another typical example was that of a sentry 
inflicting injury on an intruder in an excess of zeal. In this difficult 
field the first essential was to apprehend the offender and bring him to 
trial. Legitimate differences of opinion on the theory of jurisdiction 
should not be allowed to deteriorate into a contest between the mili- 
tary authorities of the sending State and the civil authorities of the 
receiving State, as such a contest could only end in deadlock. The 
solution lay in arriving at a working arrangement which each side 
could accept as being equitable and which would encourage full coop- 
eration between the military and the civil authorities. The absence 
of willing cooperation on both sides would only lead to chaos. The 
effect on the public of such cases should also be borne in mind. Gen- 
erally speaking, public opinion was sympathetically disposed towards 
the victim but was not very much exercised as to which authority 
actually punished the offender. 

Paragraph 7 was of some importance insofar as it laid down the 
principle that once an individual had been tried and convicted he 
could not be tried again for the same offense in that country. 

Paragraph 10 contained a new point which required careful study 
and probably legislation. It was clear that offenses of this nature 
could not be dealt with under the ordinary law of the receiving 
States. 

(f) Article VIII 

This was also a difficult article. Paragraph 1 made provision for a 
mutual waiver of claims between States in respect of damage to any 
property owned by the service ministries of a Contracting Party. The 
reason for this mutual waiver was a desire to avoid the inter-State 
claims which would otherwise arise out of the inevitable minor colli- 
sions and accidents. The mutual waiver also included special provi- 
sions in respect of vessels. 

Paragraph 2 covered possible inter- State claims relating to non- 
service property and envisaged a mutual waiver of claims up to a 
value of £500. 

Paragraph 3 made provision for a mutual waiver of claims in 
respect of injury and death arising out of official duty. This meant 
that pensions, etc., would be dealt with under the appropriate code 
of the nation to whom the individuals belonged. 

Paragraph 4 raised a number of difficulties. The Agreement laid 
down the principle that claims would be handled throughout by the 
receiving State, probably acting through a claims commission or 
similar body, while permitting recourse to the civilian courts in the 



133 

absence of settlement. The main difficulty arose on the question of 
the distribution of costs. The adoption of a percentage scale had 
been discussed but abandoned, partly owing to the difficulty of arriv- 
ing at agreed percentages and partly because any scale of percentages 
agreed would be automatically upset by the accession of any other 
Contracting Party to the Agreement. The Working Group had 
finally decided to recommend a method of settlement under which 
the cost of claims would be distributed between the sending and 
receiving States on the basis of 75% for the sending State and 25% 
for the receiving State. The Working Group had felt that, in view 
of the fact that the receiving State would assess the damages, it 
would be unreasonable to expect the sending State to pay in full, 
and at the same time the fact that the receiving State would have to 
bear a proportion of the claim would encourage it to keep both the 
number of claims and the size of the awards as low as possible. 

Paragraph 5 laid down a procedure for off-duty claims, under 
which the sending State would meet the claim on the basis of an 
assessment made by the receiving State. The sending State would 
not, however, be compelled to pay the whole claim in full. 

(g) Article X 

This Article covered income tax. The Working Group felt that any 
provisions relating to income tax should be simple and should be, 
broadly speaking, in line with existing international agreements cov- 
ering similar circumstances. Mr. Lambert emphasized that under this 
Article the sending State would be responsible for making appro- 
priate arrangements to ensure that a member of its forces remained 
"resident" for purposes of income tax ; otherwise the position would 
arise under which individuals were exempt from tax. 

(h) Article XV 

An attempt had been made in this Article to lay down what the 
position would be in the event of an outbreak of hostilities. The 
Working Group were unanimous that, as far as possible, the Agree- 
ment should be so drafted as to permit it to continue, with certain 
obvious exceptions, after hostilities had broken out. They felt that 
the present draft could be allowed to remain in force until changed 
circumstances of war compelled one or more Contracting Parties to 
request reconsideration. Sixty days notice of denunciation was re- 
quired, thereby allowing time for an immediate review of the situa- 
tion in order to substitute alternative provisions. 



134 



(i) Article XVIII 



This Article made provision for the Agreement to come into force 
after ratification by four Contracting Parties. Such a provision was 
felt to be desirable in order that the implementation of the Agree- 
ment should not be unduly delayed. 

(j) Timetable 

The Working Group had recommended that Governments should 
be asked to submit any comments which they might wish to make on 
the draft text not later than 31 March. These comments would be 
circulated by the Secretariat, and if necessary the Working Group 
would be reconvened on 16 April. When submitting the draft to Gov- 
ernments he hoped the Deputies would recommend to them that plans 
for the implementation of the Agreement should be prepared at once, 
thereby obviating any unnecessary delay. Similarly, in cases where 
legislation was necessary, the preliminary steps should be taken. 

4. In the course of discussion the following points were made : 

(a) It was essential to clarify the passage in square brackets in 
paragraph 3 of Article VII, and in particular to define the 
term "lawful order." It was indicated that the term "law- 
ful" in this connection meant in accordance with the military 
law of the sending State. 

(b) It was agreed that it was desirable that the Agreement 
should be applicable to staff service on Headquarters such 
as SHAPE and also to individual officers attending courses 
of instruction at service colleges, etc. 

(c) The question was raised in connection with Article VIII as 
to the procedure which would be adopted in cases where an 
officer, e.g. a divisional commander, of a nationality different 
from that of the troops under his command, gave an order 
as a result of which a claim arose. The general feeling was 
that apportionment of the damages should be governed by 
the nationality of the troops causing the damage rather than 
the nationality of the officer giving the order. 

5. The Council Deputies : 

(1) invited individual Deputies to transmit the draft Agree- 
ment 3 to their respective Governments for approval. 

(2) agreed to the timetable indicated by the Chairman of the 
Working Group at paragraph 3(j) above. 



3D-D(51) 57 (28 February 1951) 



135 



(3) expressed their wholehearted appreciation to the Working 
Group for their success in drawing up a draft Agreement 
within such a short space of time. 



IV. Status of NATO Representatives and> International Staff. 

12. The Council Deputies had before them a memorandum by the 
United Kingdom Deputy, covering a draft general Agreement on 
privileges and immunities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- 
tion. 4 

13. The Council Deputies : 

invited individual Deputies to submit the draft Agreement to 
their respective Governments for consideration. 



D-R(51) 20 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 13 March 
1951 

•ft 5f» »j» *j* *J> 

VI. Status of NATO Representatives and International Staff. 1 

33. In submitting for consideration by the Council Deputies D-D 
(51) 58, concerning the status of NATO Representatives and Inter- 
national Staff, the United Kingdom Deputy pointed out that this 
draft expressed only the United Kingdom point of view. For this 
reason, it might differ in a number of respects from the draft Agree- 
ment Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding 
the Status of Their Forces, which had been drawn up by the Work- 
ing Group and had now been submitted to member Governments. 
He suggested that this draft Convention should be considered by 
Governments at the same time as D-D (51) 57. 

Sir Frederick Hoyer-Millar 2 proposed that a similar procedure for 
consideration of the draft relating to civilian staff to that for the 
Agreement on the status of forces should be adopted. A Working 
Group could perhaps be called together on the same date which had 
been fixed for the next meeting of the Group charged with the prep- 
aration of the Agreement on the Status of Forces. In this way 
coordination would be ensured between the work of the two groups. 
He also proposed that the Working Group should be instructed to 

4 D-D (51) 58 (1 March 1951). 

i Previous reference: D-R(51) 15, par. 12-13 (2 March 1951). 

2 United Kingdom Deputy. 



136 

consider the status of the members of NATO military agencies, par- 
ticularly of SHAPE. 

34. Describing the draft Agreement on the status of civilian staff 
Sr. Frederick drew attention to a number of points to which the 
Working Group should devote special consideration, in particular the 
definitions in Article 1 which specified the various categories of per- 
sons who would benefit under the convention, the position of depend- 
ents of the international staff and the national delegations. He said 
that His Majesty's Government would grant the same privileges as 
those granted to members of the diplomatic corps to persons covered 
by the Agreement as soon as their names had been included in the 
list compiled by the Secretary of State and published in the London 
Gazette under the terms of the relevant United Kingdom legislation. 
These persons' names would have to be notified to the Foreign Secre- 
tary either by their respective embassies in the case of foreign repre- 
sentatives or by the Secretary in the case of the international staff. 

35. The French Deputy suggested that the Working Group should 
be requested to take into account the OEEC regulation. He pointed 
out, moreover, that under the terms of the Agreement on the Status 
of NATO Forces, its provisions were also intended to apply to the 
international staff of the military agencies, particularly of SHAPE. 

36. The Council Deputies : 

agreed that a Working Group should be established to con- 
sider the draft submitted by the United Kingdom Delegation, 
and that it should carry out its survey in consultation with the 
group which had been charged with the consideration of the 
Agreement on the Status of the Forces. 

MS-R(51) 7 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
16 April 1951 

/. Election of Chairman. 1 

1. Mr. W.V.J. Evans 2 was elected Chairman of the Working 
Group, in succession to Mr. G.W. Lambert, on the proposal of the 
Icelandic Representative seconded by the French Representative. 



i The editor has renumbered the paragraphs in this Summary Record as 
follows (new numbers in parentheses) : par. 3 (3-5) ; par. 4-5 (6-7) ; par. 6 
(8-15) ; par. 7 (16-19) ; par. 8 (20). 

2 United Kingdom Representative. Mr. Evans served as Chairman of the 
Working Group for all the meetings reported in MS-R(51) 7-26 (16 April 1951 
to 23 August 1951). 



137 

2. The Secretary was instructed to transmit to Mr. G.W. Lambert 
the appreciation of the Working Group for the efforts which he had 
made to bring to a successful conclusion the preparation of a conven- 
tion on the military status of the armed forces of the NATO 
countries. 

//. Administrative Arrangements. 

3. It was agreed that it was necessary to have translation both 
from French into English and English into French. 

4. In view of the fact that some amendments to the draft conven- 
tion on the military status of the armed forces of the NATO coun- 
tries had only recently been received, it was agreed that it would be 
preferable for the Working Group to concentrate in the first instance 
on the draft convention on the status of NATO Representatives and 
International Staff: D-D (51) 58. 

5. It was agreed that the Working Group would attempt to finish 
their consideration of D-D (51) 58 at three meetings: namely, the 
present meeting and two meetings to be held on 17 April 1951. No 
meeting would take place on Wednesday, but it was hoped that a 
start could be made with the examination of the amendments pro- 
posed to the convention on the military status of the armed forces of 
the NATO countries 3 on Thursday, 19 April 1951. At this latter 
meeting it would probably be convenient to examine in the first in- 
stance the technical points arising out of Articles VIII to XIV 
(inclusive) of the draft. 

III. Draft Convention on the Status of NATO, National Representa- 
tives and International Staff. 4 " 

6. The Working Group then considered the draft Agreement sub- 
mitted by the United Kingdom on the Status of NATO, National 
Representatives and International Staff. 

7. The Chairman explained that most international organizations 
had an agreement on privileges and immunities, for example the 
United Nations, 5 Specialized Agencies, 6 the OEEC, 7 and the Council 

3 D-D (51) 57 (28 February 1951). 

4 Reference: D-D (51) 58 (1 March 1951). 

5 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted 
by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946 : 1 UNTS 
15. 

6 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, 
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 November 1947: 
33 UNTS 262. 

7 Supplementary Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for European Economic 
Cooperation on the Legal Capacity, Privileges and Immunities of the Organiza- 
tion, signed at Paris on 16 April 1948. Treaty Series, No. 59 (1949), Cmd. 7796, 
43 Am. J. Int. L. Supp. 94, at 102 (1949). 



138 

of Europe. 8 All these agreements were on broadly similar lines, but 
in the case of agreements concluded more recently certain modifica- 
tions had been incorporated with a view to clarification on drafting 
points. The present draft by the United Kingdom Deputy was based 
on the model of the agreement for the Specialized Agencies with the 
addition of one or two modifications aimed at taking into account 
improvements introduced in later agreements. 

8. The Working Group considered the draft Agreement, article by 
article. 

Title 

9. It was deemed preferable to exclude the words "privileges and 
immunities" from the title of this document. After discussion it was 
agreed provisionally to reword the title to read as follows: "Draft 
Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 
National Representatives and International Staff." 

Preamble 

10. A number of Representatives proposed that the term "Orga- 
nisation" should be substituted for the term "Council" where it ap- 
peared in the draft. While it was true that the North Atlantic Treaty 
itself only mentioned the Council and the Defense Committee, the 
Agreement would have to cover the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- 
nization as a whole and therefore the all-embracing term "Organisa- 
tion" appeared to be preferable. After an exchange of views on this 
suggestion, it was ultimately agreed to substitute the word "Orga- 
nisation" for "Council" in view of the difficulties which the term 
"Council" gave rise to in certain articles of the draft, in particular 
Article 3. 

Article 1 

11. It was agreed to include an additional definition (b) to read: 
"The Council means the Council established under Article 9 of the 
North Atlantic Treaty or any person or body established to act on 
its behalf." 

12. Certain drafting amendments were made in the original Arti- 
cle 1(a) and 1(b). 

13. It was decided to postpone consideration of the original Arti- 
cle 1(c) until Part V of the Agreement as a whole was considered. 
A number of Representatives indicated that in their view the defini- 
tion established in Article 1(c) was too restrictive. 



8 Statute of the Council of Europe, signed at London on 5 May 1949 : 87 UNTS 
103. 



139 



Article 2 



14. It was agreed to delete the words "The Secretary of" in the 
first line, as it was clearly incumbent upon the Organization as a 
whole to comply with the terms of this Article. 

Article 3 

15. It was agreed that the second subparagraph should be amended 
to read: "The Council shall act on behalf of the Organisation in 
these matters." 

16. The Chairman expressed the view, with which the Working 
Group concurred, that under the terms of this Article as amended 
subsidiary agencies of the Organization could not hold the title to 
property in their own name but only in the name of the Council. 

Article 4 

17. It was agreed to amend this Article as to specify that it would 
be the Council acting on behalf of the Organization who would be 
expressly authorized to waive this immunity in special cases. 

Article 5 

18. It was agreed to omit the words "whether by administrative, 
judicial or legislative action" on the ground that they added nothing 
to the text. 

Articles 6-9 

19. These Articles were agreed, subject to the substitution of the 
word "Organisation" for the word "Council" 'throughout. 
20. The Working Group : 

Instructed the Secretary to produce a redraft of Articles 1-9, 
as amended in discussion, as soon as possible. 9 

MS-R(51) 8 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
17 April 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representa- 
tives and International Staff. 1 



9 See MS-D(51) 24 (16 April 1951). 

i Reference: D-D (51) 58 (1 March 1951) 



140 

1. The Working Group resumed their discussion of the draft 
Agreement. 

Article 10 

2. The Chairman said that Part IV of the document under discus- 
sion corresponded to Article IV of the United Nations Specialized 
Agencies Convention, 2 Part III of the OEEC Convention, 3 and Part 
III of the Council of Europe Convention. 4 Section 11 of the Special- 
ized Agencies Agreement, concerning priorities, rates and taxes on 
mail, telegrams, etc., had been omitted from the present draft. The 
United Kingdom did not think the omission of this Section was of 
any great importance : NATO communications could always be sent 
from one country to another through ordinary governmental chan- 
nels. Furthermore, this provision had been found to be at variance 
with the Convention of the Intertelecommunications Union and had 
been referred to the General Assembly of the United Nations for 
discussion. 

3. The United States Representative said that paragraph 2 of 
Article 10 might imply that NATO mail would be accorded more 
favorable treatment than that normally accorded diplomatic mail. 
If for some reason restrictions were imposed on diplomatic mail, pre- 
sumably they would be imposed on NATO mail as well. He sug- 
gested the insertion, after "privileges as," of the words "are accorded 
in similar circumstances as." 

4. Some Representatives expressed the view that the suggested 
phrase appeared to be restrictive and its insertion would be unfor- 
tunate. Others were of the opinion that it would be better to retain 
the words used in the Specialized Agencies Agreement. Any change 
in the original wording might be misunderstood. 

5. It was agreed, after discussion, that it would be advisable to 
insert a new Article 10 based on the wording of Article 8 of the 
OEEC convention, which would read as follows: 

The Organisation shall, except insofar as would be inconsistent 
with the International Telecommunications Convention, enjoy in 
the territory of each Member State, for its official communications, 
treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Govern- 
ment of that State to any other Government, including its diplo- 
matic mission, in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on mail, 



2 33 UNTS 262 (21 November 1947). 

3 Supplementary Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for European Economic 
Cooperation on the Legal Capacity, Privileges and Immunities of the Organiza- 
tion, signed at Paris on 16 April 1948. Treaty Series, No. 59 (1949), Cmd. 7796, 
43 Am. J. Int. L. Supp. 94, at 102 (1949). 

4 87 UNTS 103 (5 May 1949). 






141 

cables, telegrams, radiograms, telephotos, telephone and other 

communications, and press rates for information to the press and 

radio. 

It was also agreed that communications originating from the Orga- 
nization to military Headquarters of NATO, e.g., Supreme Allied 
Commander Europe, would be covered by this Article and that com- 
munications to the Organization from the military Headquarters of 
NATO would be covered by the Agreement on the Status of the 
Armed Forces of the North Atlantic Treaty. 

Article 11 

6. The Chairman explained that this Article was based on Article 
13 of the Specialized Agencies Convention and Article 9 of the Coun- 
cil of Europe Convention. It did, however, differ considerably from 
Article 9 of the OEEC Convention in two main respects, namely : 

(a) Privileges and immunities would not be granted in respect 
of journeys of representatives to and from the place of 
meeting. 

(b) The privileges and immunities to be granted would be listed 
in detail. 

With regard to (a), the United Kingdom Government was of the 
opinion that it would not be desirable to grant privileges and immu- 
nities in cases where a Representative of a member nation broke his 
journey from his place of residence to the place of meeting in order, 
for example to take a week or fortnight's holiday in a third country. 
Their view was that the privileges and immunities concerned should 
only be granted when the individual was actually performing his 
official duties. 

With regard to (b), he explained that when the Specialized Agen- 
cies Convention was drawn up the matter was subjected to a very 
detailed examination and it was decided that it would be preferable 
to list the privileges and immunities individually. The main reason 
for this was that diplomatic privileges differed widely from country 
to country, and it was felt that when extending privileges and immu- 
nities to a new category of officials it was desirable, for reasons of 
reciprocity and for other reasons, to attempt to lay down a univers- 
ally accepted standard and at the same time to restrict those 
privileges to what was desirable for the purpose of those officials' 
functions. Article 9 of the OEEC Convention on the other hand was, 
in the view of the United Kingdom Government, a great mistake and 
in their opinion it had been drafted with insufficient care by people 
who were not fully acquainted with the subject matter or the back- 
ground. For this reason the United Kingdom had been unable to 



142 

accept its obligations under this Convention, and the Order in Coun- 
cil relating to OEEC personnel in the United Kingdom granted to 
them only those privileges and immunities which were accorded to 
officials of the Specialized Agencies. 

One proof that an error had been committed in the preparation of 
the OEEC Convention was that the Council of Europe Convention, 
which had been prepared subsequently, reverted to the model of the 
Specialized Agencies Convention, and the United Kingdom Govern- 
ment did not wish to see a repetition of the mistake which had been 
made in the preparation of the OEEC Convention. Thus, while the 
United Kingdom would be prepared to consider any modifications to 
the proposed privileges and immunities, he must urge that they 
should be set out in detail and not covered by an omnibus clause 
granting diplomatic privileges on the lines of Article 9 of the OEEC 
Convention. Any other form of convention was unlikely to be accept- 
able to the United Kingdom Parliament. 

7. The French Representative said that his Government would 
prefer to adopt Article 9 of the OEEC Convention as it stood, for 
two reasons : 

(a) The draft proposed by the United Kingdom was too restric- 
tive and the solution of the OEEC Convention was far sim- 
pler. In his view it would be unjust to conclude for NATO 
a convention less favorable than that agreed for OEEC. 
While agreeing with the force of the Chairman's remarks 
on the Specialized Agencies Convention, he thought that 
there was a distinction to be drawn between the Specialized 
Agencies, which were, in the main, bodies composed of tech- 
nicians, and NATO, members of whose delegations would 
to a considerable degree be composed of diplomatic person- 
nel. Finally, he did not think there was any valid objection 
on general grounds to extending to the comparatively small 
numbers of the delegation of NATO full diplomatic privi- 
leges. 

(b) Apart from considerations of principle it should be realized 
that OEEC and NATO would have a very close working 
relationship, particularly as far as the Financial and Eco- 
nomic Board was concerned, and he foresaw grave difficulties 
in having different conventions for the two bodies, particu- 
larly as certain individuals might be working for both 
organizations. 

With regard to parliamentary difficulties, he thought this argu- 
ment was double-edged, insofar as it would be difficult for some 
Governments to explain to their Parliaments why NATO should be 



143 

given a status which appeared to be inferior to that enjoyed by 
OEEC. Admittedly the diplomatic privileges varied from country 
to country, but this was not an insuperable objection as they were 
known worldwide and were therefore presumably generally accept- 
able. 

8. The Chairman pointed out that in practice a Government would 
undoubtedly grant to any individual the maximum facilities to which 
he was entitled either in his capacity as a diplomat, or as a member 
of OEEC, or as a representative of a NATO delegation. 

9. The Canadian Representative, while conscious of the difficulties 
involved in extending privileges and immunities to a new category 
of officials, felt that while Article 11 would be more than sufficient 
for individuals attending ad hoc NATO meetings, there was a strong 
case for granting diplomatic privileges in full to specified members 
of the permanent NATO delegations. This point might be covered 
by a series of supplementary agreements under Article 24 of the 
draft or by some other more convenient means. 

10. The Danish, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese and United States 
Representatives agreed with the view expressed by the French Repre- 
sentative that the existing draft was far too restrictive, particularly 
as far as members of permanent delegations were concerned. There 
was a further practical difficulty, namely that the majority of the 
NATO delegations in London were already on the diplomatic list. 



MS-R(51) 9 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
17 April 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representa- 
tives and International Staff 1 

1. The Working Group resumed their consideration of Part V of 
the draft Agreement. 

2. The United States Representative drew attention to the position 
of military personnel who might be attached to the permanent na- 
tional delegations, for example, to the Council Deputies. In the view 
of his Government such personnel should be covered by this Agree- 
ment and not by the Military Status Agreement. The point could be 
met by amendment to Article 11, with a cross-reference to Article 
1(b). 

i Reference: D-D (51) 58 (1 March 1951). 



144 

3. The Chairman said that it was clear from the discussion that a 
number of Kepresentatives would have to seek further instructions 
from their Governments. 

4. There appeared to be three categories of persons involved, 
namely : 

(a) permanent members of NATO delegations; 

(b) representatives of member countries who visited the Orga- 
nization from time to time for ad hoc meetings (temporary 
representatives) ; 

(c) subordinate staff. 

5. The consensus of opinion appeared to be as follows: 

(i) to favor the granting of full diplomatic privileges to cate- 
gory (a) above, down to approximately Third Secretary 
level ; 
(ii) .that temporary representatives under (b) above did not 
require full diplomatic privileges and Article 11 of the 
draft would be more than adequate for them; 
(iii) that personnel under category (c) would only require cer- 
tain limited immunities, for example those relating to per- 
sonal baggage, etc. 

There was general agreement with the Chairman's summary as 
set out above. 

6. The Working Group : 

(1) invited the Chairman to prepare a redraft of Part V of 
D-D (51) 58, incorporating the consensus of opinion as 
summarized above. 

Article 16 

7. In addition to minor editorial changes it was agreed to add a 
sentence to the effect that the Chairman of the Council Deputies shall 
communicate to the Governments of member States the names of the 
officials within the categories so agreed. 

Article 17(a) 

8. It was agreed that the words "They shall continue to be so 
immune after completion of their functions as officials of the Coun- 
cil" should be deleted, on the grounds that this provision went some- 
what further than the immunity granted to diplomatic personnel 
and that in any case the immunity was granted not to the individual 
but to the Organization. A consequential amendment would accord- 
ingly be necessary in subparagraph (b) of Article 20. 



145 



Article 17(b) 






9. The United States Representative proposed the addition at the 
end of this sub-article of the words "and from social security assess- 
ments." This addition was desirable in the view of the United 
States legislation [Delegation?], provided it did not create difficulties 
for other countries. It was agreed to accept the addition provision- 
ally. 

10. On the general issue of tax-free emoluments, Mr. Cameron 2 
urged the inclusion, in Part VI of the draft Convention, of the pro- 
visions of Article 15. The effect of this would be not to place any 
obligation on any State to grant tax immunity to any member of 
the International Staff who was its national. The United States 
Congress had up to now been firmly opposed to granting exemption 
from United States tax to United States members of international 
bodies located in the United States, and were unlikely therefore to 
accept any convention which automatically imposed upon that Gov- 
ernment an obligation to grant tax exemption to any United States 
national who might be employed in one of the NATO agencies in 
the United States. This proposal was supported by the Canadian 
Eepresentative. 

11. The Chairman explained that the United States proposal raised 
serious difficulties. Under United Kingdom law there was no method 
of granting tax exemption to United Kingdom nationals serving in 
international bodies in the United Kingdom except by inserting a 
definite obligation in an international agreement. It was the inten- 
tion of the United Kingdom to grant exemption from income tax to 
its nationals serving in the NATO. 

12. The Secretary pointed out that the United States proposal 
would have serious repercussions on the current negotiations regard- 
ing salary scales. The alternative recommendations which were at 
present under consideration by the Council Deputies were both drawn 
up on the assumption that the emoluments would be free of income 
tax, and to insert a provision on the lines proposed would mean that 
a completely fresh start would have to be made on the question of 
salaries, with consequential delays which would not be in the inter- 
ests of the Organization as a whole. Apart from this, the effect on 
any agencies in the United Kingdom would be to discriminate against 
United Kingdom nationals, for the reasons explained by the Chair- 
man. This might well lead to a situation under which nationals other 
than United Kingdom nationals would not be required to pay tax 
and United Kingdom nationals would, although both were working 



2 United States Representative. 



146 

for the same Organization. It was difficult to conceive that any 
United Kingdom national would be prepared to work for the Orga- 
nization under such conditions. 

13. This view was supported by the Norwegian Representative, 
who had participated in the drawing up of the proposed salary scales. 
He pointed out furthermore that the probable effect would be to 
inflate the salary scales still further with a consequential increase in 
the total of the NATO Civil Budget. 

14. It was agreed for the time being that the provisions of Article 
15 should not be written into Part VI of the draft, but the point 
should be considered at a later stage after the United States Repre- 
sentative had had an opportunity to seek further instructions. 

Article 18 

15. It was agreed that this Article should be deleted on the grounds 
that it would create difficulties for a number of countries to have a 
moral obligation to exempt any of its own nationals from compulsory 
military service. 

Article 20 

16. The Canadian Representative suggested that the immunities 
granted under this Article would be sufficient for the temporary 
representatives of countries who attended ad hoc meetings of NATO 
bodies from time to time. 

17. The Chairman undertook to consider this suggestion in his 
proposed redraft of Part V. 

Article 22 

18. It was agreed that it was unnecessary to have such a detailed 
article to cover abuses of privileges, as any such abuses could be 
covered either under normal diplomatic procedure, if diplomatic 
personnel were involved, or by resort to common law. 

19. The Canadian Representative however suggested that a sen- 
tence be added at the end of Article 22 on the lines of Article 24 
of the Specialized Agencies Convention in order to provide for some 
effective and speedy means of handling abuses of privilege. 

Article 24 

20. It was agreed to add a sentence at the end of this Article to 
the effect that the Council shall inform all member States of any 
agreements concluded under this Article. 



147 



Article 25 



21. In order not to delay unduly the coming into force of this Con- 
vention, it was agreed to substitute "six" for "nine" in the first line 
of the second subparagraph. 

22. The Working Group : 

(2) invited the Chairman to circulate a complete redraft of 
D-D (51) 58, incorporating the various points raised in dis- 



cussion. 3 



MS-R(51) 10 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
19 April 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of Forces. 1 

1. The Working Group had before it the draft Agreement on the 
Status of Forces, which had been drawn up in February 1951, and 
on which Governments had submitted observations. 2 

2. The Chairman had summed up those observations, article by 
article, in a document 3 which he circulated as a basis for discussion. 
He proposed that no translation into French should be made for the 
time being of the observations submitted by the Governments and 
that the French version should be made only after the English text 
had been cast in its final form. 

3. The French Representative supported this proposal and re- 
quested that a drafting committee should subsequently examine the 
French text with a view to bringing it into line with the English text. 

Article VIII, par. 1 

4. The Working Group first considered Article VIII. With re- 
spect to paragraph 1(a), the first amendment had been requested by 
the United States to the effect that: first, the designations (a) and 
(b) should be omitted from paragraph 1 ; and secondly, the term 
"Service Ministries" should be replaced by "armed services." In the 
first sentence of paragraph 1 of Article VIII, the term "armed 



3 See MS-D(51) 25 (20 April 1951). 

i Reference: D-D (51) 57 (28 February 1951). 

2 Canada: MS-D(51) 15 (3 April 1951); Portugal: MS-D(51) 16 (4 April 
1951); Belgium: MS-D(51) 17 (5 April 1951); Denmark: MS-D(51) 18 (5 
April 1951) ; France: MS-D(51) 19 (7 April 1951) ; United States: MS-D(51) 
20 (9 April 1951) ; Netherlands: MS-D(51) 21 (10 April 1951) ; United King- 
dom: MS-D(51) 22 (11 April 1951). 

3 This was apparently not distributed as an official document. 



148 

forces" would also be replaced by the term "armed services." This 
amendment was adopted. It was further agreed that paragraph 1(b) 
of the original text would become a separate paragraph, designated 
as 3, the subsequent paragraphs being renumbered accordingly. 

5. The second amendment had been requested by the Portuguese 
Representative who was of the opinion that the regulations laid down 
in this Article should not apply to damages caused intentionally and 
accordingly requested that the word "unintentionally" should be in- 
serted in paragraph 1(a) after the words "such damage was caused." 
After some discussion, the Portuguese Representative's proposal was 
rejected. Nevertheless, the Working Group recognized that, although 
this paragraph had not been drafted with a view to covering inten- 
tional damage, such damage could be regarded as falling within the 
scope of this Article in exceptional cases. 

6. The next amendment was proposed by the Belgian Delegation. 
Its object was to replace the expression "member or employee" by 
the terminology used in Article I of the draft Agreement. A discus- 
sion followed on the question whether or not this draft Agreement 
was intended to cover, not only damage caused by a member of the 
armed forces or a civilian component, but also by employees who did 
not belong to the armed forces, but might be in their service insofar 
as they had been hired for a particular job or had been given a con- 
tract. It was pointed out that, if such were the case, the same amend- 
ment should be made to paragraph 4 of Article VII. Several argu- 
ments were put forward either for or against extending the scope of 
the Agreement to cover employees. The Working Group sought a 
definition of the word "employees" which would in any case restrict 
the inclusion of this category to those persons who were regularly 
and not casually employed. The French Delegation proposed the ex- 
pression "on the pay roll." The term "salaried employee" was also 
suggested. The Chairman said that in his view the Agreement in 
question applied to the armed forces and not to the members of those 
forces. In defining the exact significance of the term "employee" the 
important point was to decide whether a Government was answer- 
able for the person so described. A definition should be sought in the 
light of this consideration and he proposed to include such a defini- 
tion in the next text of Article VIII. 

7. The United Kingdom Delegation proposed a new draft of para- 
graph 1(a), with a view to ensuring complete reciprocity of treat- 
ment of vessels and vehicles owned by Governments, whether or not 
they were used in connection with the operation of the North Atlantic 
Treaty. The Netherlands Representative pointed out that the para- 
graph should be restricted in any case to damage caused or suffered 






149 

by vessels. Special legislation existed only with reference to vessels, 
and not to aircraft and vehicles ; in the case of the latter, it was not 
the vehicle itself which was responsible, but the driver. The Work- 
ing Group agreed to the new text proposed by the United Kingdom 
Delegation insofar as it applied to vessels. 

8. As far as vehicles and aircraft were concerned, the Portuguese 
Representative proposed that the phrase "damage caused by a 
vehicle, vessel or aircraft" should be replaced by the phrase "damage 
arising out of the use of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft." This amend- 
ment was adopted by the Working Group. The whole of the United 
Kingdom proposal, as amended, was adopted. The Chairman under- 
took to prepare a final text of the passage. 

9. The next amendment to paragraph 1(a) had been submitted by 
the Netherlands Delegation, to the effect that this paragraph should 
be restricted to men-of-war. A number of Representatives thought 
that this amendment would be too restrictive. In this connection, the 
Working Group raised the question whether the phrase "vessel . . . 
in its possession" applied to vessels to be under the management of 
the Ocean Shipping Board. It was generally agreed that paragraphs 
1 to 3 did not apply to ships which were under the management of 
the Defense Shipping Authority. The only exceptions were ships 
which were taken out of the NATO shipping pool for the permanent 
use of the armed services of the Contracting Party concerned. It was 
agreed that the Netherlands amendment would be reserved for subse- 
quent consideration. 

Article VIII. par. 2 

10. The Working Group then proceeded to consider an amendment 
proposed to paragraph 2 by the United States Representative. The 
first point discussed was whether this Article should specify that the 
damage was caused to property owned by the receiving State "and 
located in its territory." The United States Representative pointed 
out that it was not the intention of his proposal to restrict the appli- 
cation of the paragraph but merely to specify the arbitration pro- 
cedure to be followed. In the case of damage caused to the property 
of the receiving State in its own territory, it would be the procedure 
laid down by the draft Agreement; in the case of damage caused 
outside the territory of the receiving State, it would be common inter- 
national practice. The phrase "located in its territory" was retained. 

11. The second object of the United States amendment was to 
change the procedure whereby the arbitrators were nominated, the 
basic difference being that, in the United States draft, the arbitrator 
was not necessarily selected from among the nationals of the receiv- 
ing State. It was pointed out that, in the case of damage caused in 



150 

national territory, the courts of the receiving State normally exer- 
cised the right of jurisdiction; it was due to the fact that in the 
present case an exception to this principle had been provided by 
establishing an arbitration procedure, that it had been decided, as a 
compensatory measure, to select an arbitrator of the nationality of 
the receiving State. The United States Representative argued on the 
contrary that, since the receiving State defrayed only 25% of the 
damage, precautions should be taken to ensure that the arbitrator was 
entirely impartial. The Chairman suggested that the arbitrator 
should be selected by the receiving and sending States parties to the 
dispute from a panel of nationals drawn up by the receiving State, 
and that, if no agreement could be reached, the nomination would be 
made by the Chairman of the Council Deputies. The United States 
Representative had no instructions on this point, but gave his provi- 
sional agreement. 

12. At the Canadian Representative's request, it was specified that 
the phrase "owned by the Contracting Parties" was understood to 
signify the property of the State itself and not of political subdivi- 
sions thereof. The Chairman, however, requested the right to reserve 
his reply, with a view to ascertaining whether this provision was 
applicable under United Kingdom law. 

13. Subparagraph (c) of the new text proposed for paragraph 2 
by the United States Representative was rejected. 

14. Subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f) of the United States draft 
were adopted. 

15. It was agreed that the whole of this paragraph would be re- 
drafted and that the new text would be subsequently circulated. 

16. The next amendment, which had been submitted by the Portu- 
guese Representative, was withdrawn by him. 

17. The next amendment, which had been submitted by the United 
Kingdom Representative, was to the effect that the following sen- 
tence should be added after the table appearing at the end of para- 
graph 2: "Any other Contracting Party whose property has been 
damaged in the same incident shall also waive its claims up to that 
amount." This amendment was adopted. 

18. The Chairman also proposed that a sentence should be inserted 
to enable the sending State to lodge a counterclaim against the re- 
ceiving State. The principle of inserting a sentence to this effect 
was adopted. 

Article VIII, par. 3 

19. The first amendment to paragraph 3 had been submitted by the 
Portuguese Representative with a view to clarifying the text. This 
amendment was slightly amended and adopted. It was understood 



151 

that, although this paragraph stipulated that the State concerned 
should waive all its claims, this did not have the effect of rendering 
null and void those claims which were submitted by individuals, 
whose rights remained unimpaired. 

Article VIII, par. 4 

20. The Working Group then proceeded to examine the United 
Kingdom request to add the words "or employees" after the word 
"members" in paragraph 4. The same arguments were put forward 
as those which had already been used in favor of the proposed amend- 
ment to paragraph 1. The Netherlands Representative opposed the 
insertion of the words "or employees" into this paragraph, on the 
grounds that the Agreement had been drawn up to cover damage 
caused by the armed forces and not by civilians in the services of the 
armed forces. The Working Group was of the opinion that it would 
be advisable to seek a general definition of the word "employee." 

21. In paragraph 4, the French Representative pointed out that 
the present wording provided exoneration from responsibility on the 
grounds that the act was done in the performance of official duties, 
in cases where it was impossible to establish whether an individual 
had played an active or passive part in the damage caused. In many 
cases, it would no doubt be impossible to prove that any particular 
piece of damage had been caused by a member of a foreign force. 
The present text would therefore have the effect of considerably re- 
stricting the scope of the Agreement. Common law would, in fact, 
become operative once more, which meant that, although the respon- 
sibility of the sending State would be recognized, it would be impos- 
sible to obtain compensation for the damage, since the sending State 
enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction. The French Delegation would 
therefore prefer to return to the general terminology of paragraph 1 
of Article 8 of the Agreement concluded within the framework of 
the Brussels Treaty and which would be worded as follows: "Sub- 
ject to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, each Contracting Party 
will be responsible for paying compensation for damage to third 
parties, caused in its territory by armed forces which are present 
there as a consequence of the North Atlantic Treaty, in all cases 
where there would be a right to compensation if the damage had 
been caused by its own armed forces." 

122. After some discussion, the Working Group drew up a new 
draft text, but reserved the final consideration of this draft for a 
subsequent meeting. 
23. With respect to paragraph 4(e) (i), the Portuguese Represent- 
ative proposed that the percentages of the claims chargeable to the 



152 

sending and receiving States should be fixed respectively at 85% and 
15%, instead of 75% and 25%. This request was based on the fact 
that the person responsible for the damage was normally expected 
to pay full compensation. According to common legal practice, the 
sending State would therefore be expected to meet the claim in full. 
The only reason for- the decision to make part of the claim charge- 
able to the receiving State was the desire to give proof of the spirit 
of cooperation existing among the States signatory to the Treaty. 
There was nothing to justify this charge in law, and the Portuguese 
Representative thought that in these circumstances the proportion 
made chargeable to the receiving State should be reduced. 

24. The United States Representative said that he had been in- 
structed to request that the cost should be shared in the proportion 
of 50% between the- two States. He considered that, since the arbi- 
trator would be selected from among the nationals of the receiving 
State, guarantees should be provided against the danger that the 
arbitrator might show too much partiality to his compatriots. This 
suggestion was emphatically disputed by a number of Represent- 
atives who said that the integrity of an arbitrator was above 
suspicion. In fact, there should be no difference between the 
amounts of claims to be awarded in such cases and the amounts 
of claims awarded for damage caused by nationals. 

25. The Working Group agreed to retain the distribution 
75-25%. 

26. The last amendment submitted to paragraph 4(e) by the 
United States Representative was rejected. 



MS-R(51) 11 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working 'Group on Status, 
20 April 1951 

/. Amendments 4o Article VIII of the Draft Agreement. 1 

1. The Working Group continued their examination of the amend- 
ments 2 proposed to Article VIII of the draft Agreement on the 
Status of Forces. 



i Reference: D-D (51) 57 (28 February 1951). 

2 For a list of the documents containing the amendments proposed by the 
various delegations, see MS-R(51) 10, par. 1, note 2, supra (19 April 1951). 



153 



Article VIII, par. 4(e) (ii) 



2. The French Representative inquired what the position would 
be under this subparagraph when damage was caused by several 
Contracting Parties and it was impossible to apportion the blame 
among them. He suggested an addition to this clause to the effect 
that: "If the damage is caused by armed forces of the Contracting 
Parties without it being possible to determine whether one or more 
of those forces are responsible for the damage, the indemnity to be 
paid will be divided equally between the Contracting Parties con- 
cerned. 

3. It was pointed out that, if this amendment were accepted, 
it would be necessary to insert at the end of it the proviso at 
present contained in the phrase beginning "However, if the receiv- 
ing State" in paragraph 4(e) (ii). 

4. The amendment proposed by the French Representative was 
agreed in principle. The Chairman undertook to circulate a sug- 
gested draft. 

Article VIII, par. 4(f) 

5. United States amendment. The United States Representative 
pointed out that this amendment was submitted for reasons of 
administrative convenience, namely, to avoid individual members 
of a force being required to appear before the courts of the receiving 
State in cases where it was possible to reach a settlement without 
his taking part in the case. 

6. It was pointed out in discussion that in the majority of cases 
it would be necessary for the defendant to attend the court in order 
to testify, as he would probably be the individual responsible for 
the damage. It was true that in cases of this kind the government 
authorities of the State concerned would stand behind the individual, 
and in order to protect him provision had in fact been made in the 
Agreement to the effect that no judgment could be entered against 
the individual. In the case of the United Kingdom, the result of 
adopting the United States amendment would be that action could 
only lie either against the force or the State concerned, which would 
create difficulties. In view of the above considerations the United 
States Representative agreed to withdraw his proposed amendment. 

Article VIII, par. 4(g) (new) 

7. United States proposal. The United States Representative 
explained that his Government felt that it would be desirable to 
attempt to lay down some kind of procedure to cover maritime 



154 

claims made by third parties. The basic idea contained in his sug- 
gested paragraph was that when a national of one State had a 
claim against another Contracting Party he would receive fairer 
treatment if he dealt exclusively with his own national courts 
rather than being compelled to plead his case in a foreign court. 
Once the claim was settled by his own Government the damages, 
if any, would be distributed in accordance with the generally agreed 
percentages for claims. 

8. The Belgian and Danish Representatives said that the United 
States proposal was unacceptable and they would prefer to leave 
the existing second subparagraph of paragraph 4(f) as it stood. 

9. The Canadian Representative appreciated the motives which 
had impelled the United States Government to make this proposal 
but he felt that the language used was unduly complicated. Would 
not the position be met if a simplified wording was adopted on the 
following lines: "Where a person has a maritime claim against the 
armed services of another Contracting Party arising out of the 
operation of the North Atlantic Treaty, the courts of the country 
of which that person is a national shall be the venue to determine 
such claims"? 

10. The Chairman said that in his view the procedure proposed 
in the additional paragraph was impracticable. For example, if a 
passenger vessel, carrying several hundred passengers belonging to 
say twenty or thirty nations, was sunk by a NATO vessel as a 
result of collision, the application of the paragraph would mean 
innumerable actions for damages being taken in all the various 
countries concerned, in accordance with their own particular laws. 
The members of the Shipping Company, for instance, could not 
possibly be represented at all these actions. 

11. The Italian and Portuguese Representatives concurred in this 
view. In addition, the Italian Representative pointed out that he 
could not accept the application of the proposed subparagraph in 
Italian territorial waters. 

12. It was finally pointed out that the proposal in subparagraph 
(g) was in conflict with international law and international agree- 
ments and for this reason alone could not be accepted. 

13. The United States Representative agreed to report the views 
expressed above to his Government. 

Article VIII, par. 4(f) 

14. The United Kingdom amendment to the second subpara- 
graph was accepted in principle subject to certain drafting changes 
to be proposed by the Chairman. 



155 



Article VIII, par. 5 



15. The Portuguese Representative said that in his view it would 
be preferable for the ex gratia payments to be made direct to the 
authorities of the receiving State rather than to the claimant, in 
view of the fact that the assessment of the damage had been carried 
out by the authorities of the receiving State. 

16. The Chairman said that while having no strong views on 
this point he was inclined to favor the Portuguese amendment. 
This view was supported by the Danish, Netherlands and Norwegian 
Representatives. 

17. The United States Representative said that it had been the 
United States experience that in some cases, owing to administrative 
defects, there had been a delay between the receipt of ex gratia 
payments by the authorities of a receiving State and its receipt by 
the actual claimant. This had resulted in complaints being addressed 
by the claimant to the sending State for not having made payment, 
when in fact it had already been made some time previously. Apart 
from this, he felt that there was some psychological advantage in 
the ex gratia payment being received direct by the individual claim- 
ant from the government responsible. 

18. The Canadian Representative pointed out that under Canadian 
law ex gratia payments had to be sanctioned by Parliament and made 
direct to the beneficiary. 

19. In the light of the above considerations the Portuguese Re- 
resentative agreed to withdraw his proposed amendment. 

20. It was agreed that for reasons of clarity it would be pre- 
ferable to subdivide this paragraph into four subsections. 

21. The United States Representative said that his Government 
assumed that any agreement to ex gratia payments would be on the 
basis of reciprocity. This assumption was confirmed by the Work- 
ing Group. 

Article VIII, par. 7 

22. The United States Representative withdrew his proposal to 
delete this paragraph. 

23. The Chairman explained that the object of the United King- 
dom amendment to paragraph 7 was to exclude any Contracting 
Party from claiming immunity under his national law for cases 
not covered elsewhere in the Article, e.g., affiliation orders. The 
United Kingdom amendment was agreed in principle subject to 
redrafting. 



156 



Contractual Claims 



24. The French Representative suggested that some provision 
should be inserted in this Article to cover contractual claims. This 
might be based on Article 8, par. 7, of the Agreement Relative to 
the Status of Members of the Armed Forces of the Brussels Treaty 
Powers. 

25. The Chairman welcomed this proposal and pointed out that 
under the present draft if a contract was entered into in the name 
of the sending State with a civilian of a receiving State, no machin- 
ery existed for resolving any dispute which might arise. Normally 
the courts of the receiving State would have no jurisdiction on 
such matters, but the effect of introducing a paragraph on the lines 
suggested by the French Representative would be to remove the 
immunity at present enjoyed by the sending State. 

26. The United States Representative said that he found some 
difficulty in accepting the proposed addition. The number of in- 
dividuals who would be authorized to commit their Governments 
in such matters would, he thought, be small. Considerable doubts 
were expressed on this latter point, reference being made to local 
purchases which were normally carried out on the authority of 
commanders of units. The general consensus was that there would 
be an advantage in providing some machinery. 

27. The United States Representative agreed to seek further in- 
structions from his Government on this matter, but felt bound 
to point out that it was the policy of the United States Government, 
as such, not to subject itself to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. 
He doubted whether a proposal to submit such cases to arbitration 
would be more acceptable to the United States Government than 
the proposal made by the French Representative. 

MS-R(51) 12 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
20 April 1951 

/. Amendments to the Draft Agreement on the Status of Forces. 1 

1. The Working Group continued their discussion of the proposed 
amendments 2 to the draft Agreement. 



i Reference: D-D (51) 57 (28 February 1051). 

2 For a list of the documents containing the amendments proposed by the 
various delegations, see MS-R(51) 10, par. 1, note 2, supra (19 April 1951). 



157 

//. Article XI of the Draft. 

Article XI, par. 2 

2. The United States Representative explained that the purpose 
of the proposed United States amendment was to overcome an 
administrative difficulty under United States law, which might 
require the United States custom authorities to demand a triptyque 
for vehicles not brought in under their own power, e.g., boxed 
vehicles. 

3. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom Government 
would see no objection to the United States proposal provided that 
a certificate containing the same information as was contained in 
a triptyque was made available. In discussion it was pointed out 
that the emphasis in this paragraph was on the temporary import 
and export of vehicles. It was, of course, clearly understood that 
vehicles imported as part of the force equipment could be assembled 
in the receiving State and used on the roads. After discussion it 
was agreed that this paragraph should be reworded to read as 
follows : 

The temporary importation and the re-exportation of service 
vehicles under their own power shall be authorised free of duty 
on presentation of a triptyque in the form shown in the Appendix 
to this Agreement. The temporary importation of such vehicles 
not under their own power shall be governed by paragraph 4, 
and the re-exportation thereof by paragraph 8 of this Article. 
These vehicles shall be exempt from any tax payable in respect 
of the use of vehicles on the roads. 

Article XI, par. 4 

4. The Canadian Representative said that he wished to withdraw 
the proposed Canadian amendment. 

5. The United States Representative withdrew the proposed 
United States amendment on the understanding that nothing in 
the existing wording precluded special arrangements being entered 
into between the sending State and the receiving State with regard 
to canteen supplies on the lines of those already existing between 
the United Kingdom and the United States. In order to clarify 
the whole position the words "by the receiving State" should be 
inserted after the word "permitted." 

6. The Belgian amendment to paragraph 4 was accepted. 

7. Danish amendment. The Danish Representative explained that 
the Article as at present drafted only covered exemption from 



158 

import duty and did not cover such things as exemption from 
quotas or other restrictions. It was not the wish of the Danish 
Government that such restrictions should be applied to the import of 
equipment for the forces. 

8. The Chairman explained that the receiving State must retain 
the right to ban the import of certain prohibited articles, for example 
drugs. The main object of the present draft was to permit agree- 
ment to be reached between the sending State and the receiving 
State, under which reasonable quantities of provisions, supplies, 
etc., would be granted free entry. If however the quantity of sup- 
plies imported appeared to be unreasonable, free entry would not 
be granted by the [receiving] 3 State. With regard to the point 
on import quotas, he thought that this would solve itself, since if 
the receiving State agreed to admit a given quantity of any goods, 
any import license which might be required under the regulations 
obtaining in the receiving State would be automatically granted. 

9. The Canadian Representative wished to place on record his 
Government's view that there should be no discrimination between 
countries with regard to the duty-free import of these categories 
of goods. This understanding was confirmed. 

10. In the light of the above explanations the Danish Represent- 
ative withdrew his proposal. 

11. It was also agreed to insert in paragraph 4 after the words 
"of a certificate" the phrase "in a form agreed between the receiv- 
ing State and the sending State." The object of this amendment 
was to cover inter alia the import of top secret equipment. In such 
cases the receiving State would normally accept a certificate from 
the sending State that the import in question consisted of classified 
material. 

Article XI, par. 5 

12. The amendment proposed by Canada was accepted, and the 
paragraph was reworded to read: 

A member of a force or civilian component may at the time 
of his first arrival to take up service in the receiving State, or 
at the time of the first arrival of any dependent to join him, 
import his personal effects and furniture free of duty for the 
term of such service. 

At the suggestion of the French Representative the Chairman 
undertook to consider a redraft of this paragraph to cover the point 
that duty-free import should be restricted to articles already in use. 



3 Original text : "sending." 



159 



Article XI, par. 8 



13. In accordance with an amendment proposed by the United 
States, it was agreed to insert the number "2" before "4, 5 or 6" 
in both places where these numbers were used in the Article. 

14. In accordance with the amendment proposed by Denmark, 
it was agreed that subparagraph 8(b) should be reworded to read 
"the authorities concerned of the receiving State" in place of the 
words "the customs authorities." 

Article XI, par. 12 

15. The French amendment to paragraph 12 was accepted, and it 
was agreed to add to the English text the words "except dues and 
taxes in respect of services rendered." 

16. The United States Representative proposed that two new 
paragraphs should be added to Article XL The first of these para- 
graphs stated that the provisions of this Article would also apply 
to persons or things in transit. This amendment was adopted. 

17. The object of the second paragraph which it was proposed to 
add, was to specify that the word "imported" would include things 
withdrawn from customs-bonded warehouses or continuous customs 
custody. This provision was designed to prevent a number of 
difficulties arising out of United States customs legislation. The 
Chairman pointed out that things deposited in bonded warehouses 
might be either things imported by an agent of the forces, or things 
imported by the forces themselves, or things imported through 
normal trade channels, or lastly things manufactured in the receiv- 
ing State and deposited in a bonded warehouse before re-exporta- 
tion. He considered that it would be difficult in the case of the latter 
to accept the possibility of importation free of duty. 

18. The Portuguese Representative proposed that the things im- 
ported should be defined as those originating from a foreign country 
and that this definition should be inserted into paragraph 12 of 
Article XL This proposal was adopted. 

III. Article XIII. 

19. The French Delegation proposed that in paragraph 1 of 
Article XIII the words "customs and fiscal" should be deleted 
before the word "authorities." This proposal was adopted. 

20. The Belgian Representative expressed the view that the text 
of paragraph 4 of Article XIII should not be worded in such a 
way that it implied the obligation to hand over the vehicles or 



160 

articles belonging to members of a force. After some discussion, 
it was agreed that the text should not be altered, on the under- 
standing that the obligation to hand over a vehicle or article only 
applied to those belonging to the force itself and not to those 
belonging to an individual member of this force. 

IV. Article XV. 

21. The Netherlands proposal to delete the reference to paragraph 
4 from the text of paragraph 1 of Article XV was adopted. The 
amended wording of the English text in the same paragraph, as 
proposed by the United States Kepresentative, was adopted. 

V. Articles XVI and XVII. 

22. In Article XVI, on the proposal of the United States Rep- 
resentative, the term "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation" was 
deleted and replaced by the phrase "the Council as. established in 
accordance with Article 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty, or any 
other subsidiary body of the Council authorised by it and acting 
on its behalf." It was agreed that the same. text would be adopted 
for the second sentence of Article XVII. 

VI. Article XVIII. 

23. The United Kingdom Delegation proposed an amendment 
to Article XVIII, to the effect that the following phrase, "sub- 
ject to the approval of the Contracting Parties and to such con- 
ditions as they may decide," should be inserted after the words "the 
present Agreement shall, . . ." The Working Group recognized that 
it would be advisable to amend the wording to this effect, and agreed 
to request the Chairman to prepare a new text for this passage. 

VII. Article IX. 

24. The Working Group proceeded to consider Article IX. In 
paragraph 3, the Working Group agreed to replace the phrase, 
"After agreement between the authorised representatives . . ." by 
the following wording: "Subject to such bilateral Agreements as 
are already in force or may be concluded between the authorised 
representatives . . ." The French Representative pointed out, how- 
ever, that he might have to raise the question of principle con- 
cerning these Agreements again, when the first Articles of the 
Convention came up for discussion. 



161 

25. In paragraph 4, an amendment to the French text which had 
been proposed by the Belgian Representative was adopted. The 
English text remained unchanged. 

26. In the same paragraph, the Canadian Representative pointed 
out that if the labor legislation were too strictly applied, a number 
of difficulties might arise, and that, instead of referring specifically 
to the labor legislation of the receiving State, it would be better to 
refer merely to the standards in force in that State. A number of 
Representatives remarked that it would be difficult for subordinate 
officials to refer to anything other than a specific text. The Work- 
ing Group finally agreed to abide by the original text, on the under- 
standing that the Summary Record would mention that each State 
was free to give a liberal interpretation of the labor legislation in 
force when issuing memoranda on the manner in which the provision 
should be applied. 

27. Before the word "members" in the English text of paragraph 
5, the word "their" was replaced by "its." 

28. The Netherlands Representative proposed that a new para- 
graph should be inserted concerning the terms under which a force 
could be supplied with local currency without disturbing the 
monetary balance in the receiving State. The Working Group 
agreed that it was not in a position to discuss this amendment at 
the present meeting and postponed its consideration to a subsequent 
meeting. 

VIII. Article X. 

29. With respect to Article X, the French Representative said 
that he would prefer a text listing the fiscal exemptions to be 
enjoyed by the persons covered by the Agreement, rather than 
a general statement of principle. If the Working Group did not 
consider that it was feasible to make such a list, he wished it to 
be clearly understood that: 

(a) the text did not apply to taxation levied on occupied 
premises (assessment on income) ; 

(b) the text did not apply to income tax insofar as it was 
levied on income derived from a source in any State other 
than the receiving State, but applied to tax levied on in- 
come derived from sources within the receiving State. 

The Working Group agreed with this interpretation of the Article. 

30. On the proposal of the United States Representative, the word 
"legal" was inserted before the word "incidence" in the first line 
of paragraph 1. 



162 

31. The Canadian Representative requested that consideration 
should be given to the possibility of extending the tax exemption 
of this Article to dependents of the members of a force or civilian 
component. This proposal was criticized by several Representatives. 
It was agreed that this question would be reserved for later con- 
sideration. 

32. On the proposal of the Netherlands Representative, the words 
"residence or" were inserted between the words "change of" and 
the word "domicile" in the English text of paragraph 1. 

33. The proposal to replace the word "paid" in the English text 
of paragraph 1 by the word "granted" was rejected. 

34. The Norwegian and Danish Delegations proposed the deletion 
of paragraph 2 concerning the taxation of a member of a force 
or civilian component with respect to any profitable enterprise 
other than his employment as such member by the sending State. 
Consideration of this question was reserved for a subsequent meet- 
ing. 

35. The United States Representative proposed that a new para- 
graph should be added to the effect that, in the sense of this Article, 
the term "member of a force" did not include persons who were 
nationals of the receiving State. He said that the paragraph which 
it was proposed to add should be considered in connection with the 
previous Canadian proposal to the effect that the possibilities of 
tax exemption should also extend to dependents. A number of 
delegations reserved their position. It was agreed that the question 
would be reconsidered at a forthcoming meeting. 



MS-R(51) 13 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
23 April 1951 

/. Amendments Proposed to Article I of the Draft Agreement. 1 

1. The Chairman recalled that a draft amendment to Article IX, 
which had been submitted by the Netherlands Delegation, had still 
to be discussed in connection with the fiscal and financial questions. 
He proposed that the discussion on this point should be postponed 
until the various delegations had been able to obtain instructions. 



i Reference: D-D (51) 57 (28 February 1951). For a list of the documents 
containing the amendments proposed by various delegations, see MS-R(51) 10, 
par. 1, note 2, supra (19 April 1951). 



163 

2. With regard to the program of work, he would like, if possible, 
to complete the first reading of the draft Convention on the Status 
of the Armed Forces and the discussion of the proposed amendments 
by the end of the following day. The meetings held at the end 
of the week could then deal with the draft Convention on the 
privileges and immunities of NATO civilian staff. The new text 
which had been circulated raised a number of difficulties for the 
United Kingdom Government, and the Chairman feared that he 
would not receive instructions before the end of the week. He would 
endeavor to obtain these instructions with a view to enabling the 
discussion on this text to be held on Thursday or Friday, 26 or 27 
April 1951. 

3. The Canadian Representative said that his Government would 
like to see a similar provision to that contained in Article XV of 
the Convention on Immunities and Privileges inserted into the 
sixth Part of the aforementioned Convention on the Immunities 
and Privileges of NATO civilian staff. If this proposal was not 
adopted, the Canadian Government might be obliged to make 
certain reservations on the application to Canadian civil servants of 
the Convention on the Immunities and privileges of NATO civilian 
staff. 

Article 1(a) 

4. The Working Group proceeded to the examination of the 
amendments proposed to Article 1. of the draft Convention on the 
Status of the Armed Forces. The first amendment had been pro- 
posed by the United States Delegation, to the effect that in para- 
graph (a) the phrase "in the North Atlantic Treaty area" should 
be substituted for "in connexion with the operation of the North 
Atlantic Treaty." The reason for this proposed amendment was 
that it was often difficult to decide whether or not forces were 
present in one of the member countries in connection with the 
operation of the Treaty. The United States Delegation feared that 
the present text might lead to considerable administrative difficulties. 

5. The Belgian Representative remarked that it was a frequent 
occurrence for Netherlands troops to enter Belgium to carry out 
maneuvers in her territory. The presence of these troops had no 
connection with the North Atlantic Treaty. If the United States 
proposal were adopted, however, they would be covered by the 
Convention, which was clearly contrary to the spirit of the Con- 
vention. He proposed that the United States wording might be 
adopted, if the receiving State were left free to decide that troops 
present in its territory did not come within the provisions of the 
Agreement. 



164 

6. The Chairman thought that no unilateral decision could be 
taken in this connection. 

7. The Danish Eepresentative, supported by the Norwegian Rep- 
resentative, opposed the United States request. He thought that 
members of a force who might be present in Denmark on leave, for 
example, could hardly be covered by the Agreement. 

8. The Canadian Representative considered that it should also be 
specified that the text referred to members of this force taken 
collectively. 

9. The Chairman thought that the Article in its present wording 
clearly intended to refer to the force in the collective sense of the 
term since, whenever reference was intended to an individual member 
of a force, the term "member of the force" was used throughout the 
Convention. 

10. The Working Group recognized that the Article should be so 
amended as to provide for possible exemptions to the general rule 
and not to exclude the case of members of a force on leave in the 
same State in which their force was present. It finally adopted 
the wording proposed by the Chairman, according to which para- 
graph (a) would read as follows: 

Subject to any Agreement to the contrary between the re- 
ceiving and sending States, "force" means the personnel belong- 
ing to the land, sea or air armed services of one Contracting 
Party when in the territory of another Contracting Party in the 
North Atlantic Treaty area in connexion with their official duties. 

11. The next amendment was submitted by the Portuguese Rep- 
resentative. He pointed out that under the present text, nationals 
of the receiving State who were members of a foreign force present 
in the territory of the receiving State, could escape by this means 
from the application of the laws of their country. He thought it 
would be unfortunate if there were any difference of treatment 
between a Portuguese soldier, for example, who was a member of 
the Portuguese army, and a Portuguese soldier who was a member 
of a United States force present in Portugal. The same restrictions 
should be adopted for the members of a force as for those of a 
civilian component. 

12. The Chairman said that the examination of the Convention 
showed that only paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article III could justify 
the fears expressed by the Portuguese Representative. He further 
pointed out that the text of Article I was not intended to apply to 
the members of the force but to the force taken as a whole. Lastly, 
it might be dangerous in certain cases, under Article VII and 
Article VIII, for example, to withdraw the privileges given under 



165 

the provisions of the present Convention, from nationals who were 
members of a force. He proposed that, as the examination of the 
Convention proceeded, each paragraph should be considered from 
the point of view of deciding whether or not its proposals should 
apply to those nationals of the receiving State who were members 
of a force present in that State, and whether it was necessary to 
amend the paragraph in question. In the event that such examina- 
tion led to the conclusion that a general provision should be in- 
serted into the Convention, the Portuguese proposal to amend 
Article I would be reconsidered. 

Article 1(b) 

13. With respect to paragraph (b), the French Representative 
proposed that the definition of the civilian personnel should specify 
that such personnel should possess the nationality of the sending 
State. Problems difficult to solve might arise, particularly under 
the application of Article VII, if the members of the civilian com- 
ponent belonged to a third nationality or were stateless. 

14. The United States Representative argued that under United 
States military regulations, civilian personnel accompanying the 
forces were subject to the same discipline as the military personnel. 
Moreover, the United States would certainly include in the civilian 
component persons belonging to a different nationality from that of 
the sending or receiving States. The restriction proposed by the 
French Representative would leave members of a civilian component 
belonging to a third nationality without protection. 

15. The French Representative said that the French Government 
was primarily concerned to obviate those difficulties which would 
arise at the time of entry into France of persons not belonging 
to the nationality of a NATO country or stateless persons. In some 
cases, such persons would be liable to be refused entry by the 
French Government. 

16. The Chairman proposed that Article I (b) should specify 
that the Agreement covered members of a civilian component who 
were not nationals of the receiving State, and further were neither 
stateless nor the nationals of a country other than the NATO 
countries. 

17. The French Representative signified his willingness to submit 
this new wording to his Government. 

Article 1(e) 

18. In paragraph (e), the Belgian Representative thought that 



166 

the definition of the receiving State should mention the civilian 
component as well as the force. Otherwise, cases might occur 
where a member of a civilian component passing in transit through 
a country in which no force was present might not be covered by 
the Agreement. This amendment was adopted. 

Proposed additions to Article I. 

19. The next amendments, which related to the addition of new 
paragraphs and were submitted by the United States and the United 
Kingdom respectively, were reserved for subsequent consideration 
in connection with the general question of deciding to which ter- 
ritories exactly the Agreement applied. 

20. The Chairman proposed that Article I should be completed 
by the insertion of the definition of the North Atlantic Council in 
the terms of the text adopted at the previous meeting for Article 
XVI and XVII. The text of these Articles would be amended with 
a view to including only a reference to the definition given in Article 
I. This addition was adopted. 

//. Amendments to Article III. 

Article III, par. 1 

21. In Article III, paragraph 1, the Portuguese Eepresentative 
proposed that the words "and immigration inspection" be deleted. 
The Portuguese Representative [argued] 2 that exemption from im- 
migration inspection might enable undesirable individuals to enter 
the receiving State. 

22. The United States Eepresentative pointed out that this provi- 
sion was essential where the entry of personnel into the United 
States was concerned. Otherwise personnel would be compelled to 
comply with normal immigration procedure on entry into the 
United States. 

23. It was agreed that the text should be retained unchanged, 
subject to this explanation and to the fact that every country 
would be free to apply special measures if it desired thereby to 
exercise stricter control over the entry of personnel. 

Article III, par. 2(b) 

24. In paragraph 2(b), the United States Representative proposed 
the addition after "issued by an appropriate agency of the send- 

2 Original text : "agreed." 



167 

ing State" of the phrase "or of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisa- 
tion." This provision was necessary in order to prevent difficulties 
arising when SHAPE or other international Headquarters directed 
their members on missions. This amendment was adopted. 

Article III, par. 4 

25. In the last line of paragraph 4, the United States proposal 
to replace the term "such person" by the word "member" was 
adopted. The French text required no amendment. 

26. The Danish Representative thought that it would be appro- 
priate to include in paragraph 4 a provision specifying the right 
of the receiving State to detain and extradite to the sending State 
any deserters notified to the receiving State in accordance with the 
present text of paragraph 4. It should also be clarified whether the 
receiving State was under any general obligation to search for, 
detail and extradite such deserters or whether such action should 
be taken only at the request of the sending State. 

27. The Italian Representative said that two cases might arise. 
A member of a force or civilian component who no longer belonged 
to that force or civilian component might be concerned; in this 
case he would merely be in the position of an alien and would 
thus be subject to the laws of the receiving State. In the case 
of a deserter, the general procedure to be followed was laid down 
in Article VII [III?]. He therefore thought it unnecessary to 
amend the text of paragraph 4. 

28. The Working Group agreed to retain the present text of 
paragraph 4 of Article III. 



MS-R(51) 14 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
24 April 1951 

/. Amendments to the Draft Convention on the Status of the NATO 
Forces: Article III. 1 

Article III, par. 4 

1. The Danish Representative recalled the proposal which he 
had made at the previous meeting to include a paragraph specify- 

i Reference: D-D (51) 57 (28 February 1951). For a list of documents con- 
taining amendments proposed by the various delegations, see MS-R(51) 10, par. 
1, note 2, supra (19 April 1951). 



168 

ing the right of the receiving State to search for and arrest any 
deserter notified to the receiving State with a view to handing them 
over to the sending State, without laying down that the receiving 
State should take such action only on request. It was not the 
intention to lay any obligation on the receiving State to take such 
action, but merely to provide that it was entitled to carry it out. 

2. The Working Group was of the opinion that the existing 
position corresponded to that described by the Danish Representa- 
tive and that it was unnecessary to amend the existing text of 
paragraph 4. 

Article III, par. 5 

3. The Representatives of the United Kingdom and United States 
both proposed that the scope of this paragraph should be extended 
to cover dependents. A discussion took place to decide, first, to 
what extent this addition was acceptable and secondly, to which 
extent it could apply to a request for removal or an expulsion order. 
In this connection the Portuguese Representative expressed the view 
that the case of nationals of the receiving State should be expected. 
Finally, the Working Group adopted the following wording: 

"If the receiving State has requested the removal from the 
territory of a member of a force or civilian component, or has 
made an expulsion order against an ex-member of a force, or 
a civilian component, or against a dependent of a member or ex- 
member, the authorities of the sending State shall be responsible 
for receiving the person concerned within their territory or 
otherwise disposing of him outside the receiving State. This 
paragraph shall not apply to nationals of the receiving State. 

//. Amendment to Article IV. 

4. The amendment to paragraph (b) proposed by the Belgian 
Delegation to the effect that the words "or military driving permit" 
should be added after the word "licence" was adopted. 

///. Amendment to Article V. 

5. With regard to paragraph 1, the Portuguese Representative 
requested that it should be specified that members of a force might 
wear civilian dress on the same conditions as members of the 
forces of the receiving State. Certain difficulties might in fact arise 
in the case of members of a foreign force not wearing uniform. 
Moreover, it was reasonable to expect armed forces present in the 
same territory to be subject to the same regulations with regard 



169 

to the wearing of uniform. The United States Representative 
objected that the wearing of uniform was primarily governed by 
the military regulations and discipline in force in the individual 
countries, and that he considered that the regulations of a force 
could hardly be altered according to the receiving State in which 
it was present. 

6. The Chairman fully appreciated the considerations of the 
Portuguese Representative and proposed the following text, which 
was adopted by the Working Group: 

"but, subject to any arrangements to the contrary, the wearing 
of civilian dress shall be on the same conditions [as] for members 
of the force of the receiving State." 

IV. Amendments to Article VI. 

7. For the same reasons as those which he had expressed in con- 
nection with the wearing of civilian dress, the Portuguese Rep- 
resentative requested that the possession and carriage of arms 
should be subject to the same regulations as those in force for the 
troops of the receiving State. Several members of the Working 
Group remarked that this was a different question. The commander 
of a military unit was alone competent to decide when the carriage 
or non-carriage of arms was justified. In the present case, the 
military regulations of the armed forces under consideration should 
take precedence. 

8. The Working Group agreed to retain the existing text, subject 
to the reservation of the Portuguese Representative's position for 
the second reading of the Agreement. 

9. The French Representative requested that the words "and 
possess" should be added in the same paragraph to the word "carry." 
This made no difference to the general sense of the text, but from 
the legal point of view, it was necessary to foresee both cases. This 
addition was adopted. 

10. The French Representative also said that it would be advis- 
able to request SHAPE to lay down general regulations concern- 
ing the possession and carriage of arms, with a view to standardiz- 
ing the regulations applying to all the troops under its command. 
The Working Group considered that a proposal to that effect could 
be included in the report submitting the draft Convention to the 
Deputies. Nevertheless, as strictly military questions were con- 
cerned, the Working Group could not do more than propose that 
SHAPE should be invited to consider the possibility and desira- 



170 

bility of drawing up standard regulations. An invitation to this 
effect should also be made to the Supreme Command Atlantic. 

11. The Italian Representative wished a recommendation to be 
submitted to the Deputies to the effect that coordination in this 
field should be ensured among the various Committees in the 
different bodies which were dealing with this type of question. It 
was agreed that this proposal would be reconsidered at the end of 
the examination of the draft Convention. 

12. The Belgian proposal appearing in MS-D(51) 17 to the 
effect that arms should be carried in such a way as to be visible, 
was withdrawn. 

V. Amendments to Article VII. 

Article VII, par. 1(a) 

13. The Portuguese Representative proposed that the phrase "all 
jurisdiction and control" should be replaced by the phrase "all 
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction." He stressed the point that, 
as the word "control" had a very broad sense, the existing text 
conferred administrative powers which were too wide on the 
authorities of the sending State. 

14. The Canadian Representative expressed the view that the 
insertion of the words "all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction" 
might restrict the application of this passage too far. There would 
be some cases where an offense was not criminal, but where the 
authorities of the sending State might nevertheless desire to take 
action. It was pointed out, on the other hand, that the text of this 
paragraph only applied to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 
The Canadian Representative objected that, in this case, the term 
"military authorities" was too narrow. Under Canadian law, certain 
powers of jurisdiction over military personnel were exercised by 
a civilian body. After some discussion, it was agreed that the term 
"military authorities" was here used in a broad enough sense to 
cover this eventuality and that the amendment requested by the 
Portuguese Representative could therefore be adopted. 

15. In the same paragraph, several amendments had been sub- 
mitted with a view to altering the categories of persons subject 
to the jurisdiction of the military authorities of the sending State. 
There were two alternative proposals: either to replace the existing 
phrase "all persons subject to the military law of the sending 
State" by the wording "members of its force or civilian component," 
or to add "dependents." 



171 

16. Several Representatives expressed the opinion that the exist- 
ing wording was too comprehensive. Its effect would be to enable 
the [sending] 2 State to render anyone subject to its jurisdiction, 
merely by amending those provisions in the national legislation 
which specified which categories of persons were subject to military 
law. On the other hand, the deletion of the term "persons subject to 
military law" would prevent the sending State from exercising its 
jurisdiction in cases where it would be normal for it to do so (for 
example, in the case of a spy). It was argued in reply, that a 
distinction should be drawn between two separate problems: first, 
which persons were subject to military law, and, secondly, what 
were the powers of the military courts. In certain cases and in 
certain countries, persons who were not subject to military law 
(for example, nurses) were nevertheless subject to the jurisdiction 
of military courts. Lastly, a number of Representatives were 
doubtful whether dependents could be included. 

17. The French Representative recalled that the existing text was 
already a compromise which had been reached after a lengthy 
discussion. He suggested that the difficulty might be solved by 
retaining the existing text as it stood, while adding the para- 
graph proposed by the Danish Delegation, which read as follows: 

"The above provisions shall not imply any right for the mil- 
itary authorities of the sending State to exercise jurisdiction 
over persons who are nationals of or permanent residents in 
the receiving State, unless they are members of the forces of 
the sending State." 

18. This proposal was adopted by the Working Group, subject 
to the Chairman's reservation of his position with respect to the 
definition of residents. 

Article VII, par. 1(b) 

19. The Working Group adopted the proposal of the Representa- 
tives of the United States and Belgium to the effect that the words 
"or dependents" should be added to the phrase "members of a force 
or civilian component." 

Article VII, par. 2 

20. The Chairman pointed out that the existing text appeared 
to preclude the receiving State from exercising jurisdiction in cases 
where an offense was committed against the laws of both the 
sending and receiving States. He thought that there were no 

2 Original text : "receiving." 



172 

grounds for precluding the receiving State from exercising such 
jurisdiction and proposed that the first paragraph should be amended 
as follows, under the designation (a) : 

The military authorities of the sending State shall have the 
right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over persons subject to 
the military law of that State with respect to offences, including 
offences to its security, punishable by the law of that State but 
not by the law of the receiving State. 

The second subparagraph of paragraph 2 would then be desig- 
nated by the letter (b). 

21. The Working Group adopted the above amendment. 

22. The next amendments, which had been submitted by Belgium, 
Canada and the United States, were withdrawn in view of the 
decision taken with respect to paragraph 1(a). 

23. In paragraph 2(b), the United States Representative requested 
that the word "and dependents" should be added after the phrase 
"civilian component." This amendment was adopted. 

Article VII, par. 3(a) 

24. The comment of the Belgian Representative applied to the 
French text only. It was agreed that it would be taken into account 
at the time of the translation into French of the final English 
text. 

25. In subparagraph (i), the words "or security" were inserted 
after the phrase "against the property," in accordance with the 
adoption of the United Kingdom amendment in paragraph 2. 

26. The Canadian Representative proposed that in subparagraphs 
(i) and (ii) the word "offences" should be replaced by the phrase 
"acts or omissions." Several delegations also proposed further 
amendments to the definition of the offenses appearing in sub- 
paragraph (ii). 

27. The first point discussed was whether subparagraph (ii) 
should include offenses committed in the performance of official 
duty. Several Representatives were of the opinion that they should 
be excluded. The United States Representative pointed out, how- 
ever, that there w T as a possibility of offenses being committed in 
the performance of official duty; the military authorities of the 
sending State, and not those of the receiving State, were alone 
capable of deciding whether or not an official duty was being carried 
out at the time. 

28. The Portuguese Representative proposed that, failing the 
deletion of subparagraph (ii), a provision should foresee the pos- 



173 

sibility of an appeal to arbitration in order to decide whether or 
not the act had been done in the performance of official duty. It 
was pointed out that such arbitration was not consistent with the 
speed required in the repression of criminal offenses. If grave 
difficulties of principle arose between the sending and receiving 
States, the general procedure laid down in Article XVI could 
always be adopted. 

29. The Canadian Representative expressed the desire that, if his 
amendment were not taken into consideration, a provision should 
be inserted which would be analogous to the provision dealing with 
acts done in the performance of official duty which appeared in 
Article 20 of the draft Convention on Immunities and Privileges. 3 

30. The Italian Representative proposed that it should be specified 
that such act was done not only in the performance of official 
duty but also within the limits of such duty. He gave the example 
of a driver travelling between two towns on official business who 
for personal reasons deviated from the direct route. If an accident 
occurred in the course of the deviation, the driver was no longer 
acting within the limits of his official duty. 

31. The United States Representative stated that for obvious 
reasons of military discipline, his Government would not be likely 
to accept the possibility of leaving any authorities other than the 
military authorities free to decide whether or not an offense had 
been committed in the performance of official duty. 

32. The Working Group agreed that the sentence between square 
brackets should be deleted and that the rest of the text should 
be retained as it stood, subject to the Portuguese Representative's 
reservation of his final position. 

MS-R(51) 15 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
25 April 1951 

/. Draft Convention on the Status of Armed Forces! 

1. The Chairman proposed that at the meeting to be held on the 
following morning the Working Group should complete the first 
reading of the draft Agreement on the Status of the Armed Forces. 



, 



3MS-D(51) 25 (20 April 1951). 

i Reference: D-D (51) 57 (28 February 1951). For a list of documents con- 
taining the amendments proposed by the various delegations, see MS-R(51) 10, 
par. 1, note 2, supra (19 April 1951). 



174 

The second reading of this document and of the draft Convention 
on Immunities and Privileges 2 would take place on the following 
Monday and Tuesday, 30 April and 1 May 1951, and the two drafts 
would then be forwarded to the Deputies for their discussion and 
approval. He did not consider it desirable that the substance of 
the new drafts should be reconsidered by the individual Govern- 
ments. The Deputies could of course make any comments they 
wished, but this should not involve reconsideration by the Govern- 
ments concerned of the substance of the document. 

2. The Working Group agreed with the views expressed by the 
Chairman. 

77. Amendments to Article VII. 

Article VII, par. 3(a) (ii) 

3. The Canadian Kepresentative returned to the proposal which 
he had already made at the previous meeting. He was anxious that 
the Working Group should find a way to take into account the 
wishes of the Canadian Government with respect to this Article, 
otherwise a text should be inserted which would be based on the 
Article of the Convention on Immunities and Privileges dealing 
with the words and acts of NATO officials in the performance of 
their official duty. 

4. The Chairman was of the opinion that this proposal could be 
taken into account. It was only a question of finding the exact 
wording, which could be considered at the second reading of the 
text. 

Article VII, par. 5(a) 

5. It was made clear that the term "authorities" applied not only 
to the authorities of the central government, but also to local and 
military authorities. 

6. At the request of the United States Representative, the term 
"dependents" was added to paragraphs (a) and (b). It was not con- 
sidered desirable to make the same addition to paragraph (c). 

Article VII, par. 5(c) 

7. At the request of the Belgian Kepresentative, it was agreed that 
the phrase "member of a force or civilian component" should be 
added after the word "accused." No amendment was necessary in 
the French text. 



2MS-D(51) 25 (20 April 1951). 



175 

Article VII, par. 5(d) 

8. The Netherlands Representative proposed that a paragraph 
should be added, to read as follows : 

"The authorities of the receiving State shall give sympathetic 
consideration to a request from the authorities of the sending 
State for assistance in carrying out a sentence of imprisonment 
pronounced by the authorities of a sending State under the pro- 
visions of this Article within the territory of the receiving State." 
This addition was adopted. 

9. The Canadian Representative requested that a provision should 
be included to make the presence of witnesses also compulsory. After 
some discussion, the Working Group agreed that in paragraph 6(a) 
the words "and production of" should be added after the words "in 
the collection." 

Article VII, par. 6(b) 

10. The United States Representative requested that the para- 
graph should be so amended as not to lay on the authorities of the 
sending State the obligation to send to the authorities of the receiv- 
ing State all documentary material relating to prosecutions or trials. 
Any obligation to this effect would lead to considerable administra- 
tive complications and should apply only to the results of investiga- 
tions. He also requested that a sentence should be added specifying 
that this information would also be forwarded when another State 
was concerned in the case. 

11. After some discussion, the second proposal was rejected. With 
respect to the first proposal, the Chairman commented that the re- 
ceiving State might find it useful to have the information, even if 
the case did not reach the trial stage. He would therefore agree to 
the amendment requested by the United States Representative, if it 
was interpreted to mean that the communication of such informa- 
tion was not restricted to cases which had been brought to trial. 

12. The Working Group adopted a wording along the lines indi- 
cated by the Chairman, as follows : 

"The authorities of the Contracting Parties shall notify one an- 
other of the disposition [of all cases] 3 in which they have concur- 
rent rights to exercise jurisdiction." 

Article VII, par. 7 

13. The French Representative pointed out that this paragraph 
should also apply in the event of the pardon of a convicted person. 
The paragraph was amended accordingly. 

3 Words in square brackets added by the editor. 



176 

14. The Canadian Representative proposed that in this paragraph, 
as in paragraph 3(a) (ii), the word "offence" should be replaced by 
the words "act [or] 4 omission." The Chairman pointed out that this 
question had been previously discussed and that the word "offence" 
had been purposely inserted into this paragraph to meet certain 
difficulties described by the United States Representative. The Can- 
adian Representative withdrew his amendment. 

15. The United States Representative said that the existing text 
would mean that, under United States domestic regulations, the 
United States Army would be prevented from taking disciplinary 
sanctions against a member of a force who had been sentenced for 
an offense committed in a receiving State. He would like a new 
paragraph to be added, with a view to removing this bar to such 
disciplinary action. This paragraph would be worded as follows: 

"Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the authorities of 
the sending State from trying a member of its forces for viola- 
tion of rules of discipline involved in the offence. Any findings 
favourable to the accused in the first trial shall be "res judicata" 
and any sentence rendered in the first trial, whether or not exe- 
cuted, shall be taken into account." 

16. The Working Group adopted this addition. The Chairman 
wondered, however, if the second sentence served a useful purpose, 
and reserved the right to raise this point again at the second reading 
of the text. 

17. The Portuguese Representative requested that a sentence should 
be added to the effect that, in the case of an offense punishable by a 
heavy sentence in the receiving State, steps could be taken to hand 
over the accused to the authorities of the sending State. The Chair- 
man pointed out that the question had been dealt with in Article III, 
paragraph 5. The proposed addition was withdrawn. 

18. The Portuguese Representative requested that the word "duly" 
should be inserted in the first line of paragraph 7 before the word 
"tried." The Working Group finally decided that the following 
phrase should be inserted instead : "in accordance with the provisions 
of this Article." 

Article VII, par. 8(e) 

19. The Chairman said that the Article should enable the accused 
to benefit from the facilities placed at his disposal for his defense 
in the receiving State, and particularly from those relating to legal 



4 Original text : "of." 



177 

assistance. He accordingly proposed that the existing paragraph 

should be replaced by the following paragraph: 
"To have legal representation of his own choice for his defence, 
or to have free or assisted legal representation under the condi- 
tions prevailing for the time being in the receiving State." 
This amendment was adopted. 

Article VII, par. 8(g) 

20. In accordance with a comment by the Canadian Representative, 
the words "of his Government" were replaced by the words "of the 
Government of the sending State," for the reason that, in the case 
of a person belonging to a third nationality, it was still true that the 
sending State on which the force depended was alone responsible. 

Article VII, par. 9 

21. In the first subparagraph, the English text was corrected to 
read "they occupy" instead of "they have occupied." 

22. At the end of the second subparagraph, the phrase "such units 
or formations" was replaced by the term "the force." 

23. The French Representative said that he was now able to give 
the agreement of his Government to the text, in the light of the 
interpretation which he had been given at previous meetings and 
which appeared in the Summary Records. 

24. The Canadian Representative requested that an additional 
paragraph should be inserted to the effect that when an offense was 
tried by a court of the receiving State, in passing sentence the court 
should take into account the penalty which would be imposed in the 
sending State for the same offense. Several Representatives pointed 
out that it would be practically impossible for magistrates of the 
receiving State to know what legislation would apply in the sending 
State, and that it was extremely difficult to draw comparisons between 
different criminal legislations. The amendment was withdrawn. 

777. Amendments to Article IX. 

25. The Working Group considered the Netherlands proposal that 
paragraph 7 should be amended and a new paragraph added with a 
view to laying down the conditions on which the forces of the send- 
ing State would be supplied with local currency. The Netherlands 
Representative stressed the point that this was a very delicate matter. 
During the war, the Netherlands had had experience of this kind of 
difficulty and had recalled that it was due to the absence of regula- 



178 

tions that the Black Market was kept supplied with foreign cur- 
rency, which was eventually reflected in an adverse balance of pay- 
ments. In principle, the members of a force should not have foreign 
currency at their disposal. All payments connected with the require- 
ments of such forces should be made by the receiving State on behalf 
of the sending State, on the understanding that the latter would sub- 
sequently reimburse the former on terms to be agreed upon. 

26. The Portuguese Representative expressed the view that it 
would be better to leave monetary questions out of this Agreement. 
Monetary questions would be settled much more satisfactorily 
through bilateral arrangements. The question was not as simple as 
it appeared in the Netherlands amendment. A number of States 
would probably be unwilling to make advances for payments to be 
incurred by the troops of the sending State. Moreover, there was no 
certainty that the receiving State would gain any ultimate advantage 
from too large an accumulation of credits with any given sending 
State. 

27. The majority of Representatives expressed their agreement 
with the point of view of the Portuguese Representative. The Bel- 
gian Representative, in particular, considered that such questions 
could be settled under the provisions of Article XIV, paragraph 2. 

28. The Working Group agreed that the discussion should be 
suspended on this point and should be resumed when the individual 
delegations had been able to consult their financial experts. 

MS-R(51) 16 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
26 April 1951 

/. Consideration of Points Previously Reserved. 1 

1. The Working Group resumed consideration of the points which 
had been reserved for later discussion at the previous meetings. 

//. Consideration of Article X. 

2. The Chairman recalled that the French Representative had 
asked whether it would be possible to include in this Article the list 
of the various taxes with their definition. It was proposed that this 
list should be drawn up by the financial experts of the delegations 



i Reference: D-D (51) 57 (28 Pebuary 1951). For a list of documents con- 
taining amendments proposed by the various delegations, see MS-R(51) 10, 
par. 1, note 2, supra (19 April 1951). 



179 

and considered at the second reading of the text at the meeting to 
be held on the following Tuesday, 1 May 1951. 

Article X, par. 1 

3. The Canadian proposal to extend exemptions from taxation to 
dependents, had been reserved for later discussion. Several Repre- 
sentatives expressed their objections to such extension. It was agreed 
that the question would be reconsidered at the second reading of the 
document. 

Article X, par. 2 

4. The Danish proposal to the effect that it should be indicated 
that nothing shall prevent the receiving State from levying taxes on 
members of a force or civilian component in accordance with the 
regulations governing the taxation of persons residing outside the 
receiving State, had been reserved for later discussion. This referred 
for example to the case of a resident in the United States of any 
nationality who might have sources of income in the United Kingdom 
and thus be liable to taxation in the United Kingdom. If he was 
recruited by the United States and sent to the United Kingdom on 
duty with a force, these circumstances should not enable him to evade 
paying the tax which was subsequently levied on his income. 

5. The Working Group agreed that the following phrase should 
be added to paragraph 2: u all taxation to which he is liable under 
the laws of the receiving State, notwithstanding that he is regarded 
as having his residence or domicile outside the territory of that 
State." 

Article X, par. 4 

6. The United States Representative had proposed the addition of 
a paragraph to the effect that, for the purposes of this Article, the 
term "members of a force" did not include nationals of the receiving 
State. The object of this proposal was that a United States member 
of a force of a sending State present in the United States should not 
be exempted from United States taxation. This addition was adopted. 

///. Consideration of Article XI. 

Article XI, par. 4 

7. The Canadian Representative requested that it should be speci- 
fied that only one person would be authorized to certify the duty- 
free importation provided in this paragraph, in order to avoid 
abuses of the privilege thus granted. The text was amended accord- 
ingly. 



180 

8. The United States Representative recalled that, for security 
reasons, he had requested that military equipment should be ex- 
empted from the application of this Article. It had been understood 
that the necessary fiscal inspection of imports was no obstacle to 
the implementation of these security regulations. He feared how- 
ever, that the obligation to present customs documents, and accord- 
ingly to describe the equipment on such documents, would raise a 
fresh obstacle. The Working Group provisionally agreed on a word- 
ing which provided that in the case of items of military equipment, 
it would be necessary to reach agreement on the customs documents 
to be presented. 

Article XI, par. 12 

9. The Chairman proposed that a definition should be given of the 
word "importation" instead of "import." This proposal was adopted. 
The Working Group examined all the paragraphs of the Article in 
the light of this definition and came to the conclusion that the 
definition could apply to all the paragraphs of this Article. 

Article XI, par. 13 

10. The Danish Representative pointed out that it was only neces- 
sary to refer to goods in transit, and not to persons in transit. Per- 
sons were subject to the general regulations, and, in any case, cus- 
toms legislation applied to goods and not to persons. The Working 
Group agreed that the word "persons" should be deleted. 

IV. Amendment to Article I. 

11. The Chairman considered that the text of paragraph (a) previ- 
ously adopted was not well drafted, and proposed a new wording 
which did not affect the substance of the Article. This wording was 
adopted. 

V. Preamble of the Agreement. 

12. The French Representative said that the French Government 
were considering the manner in which the Agreement might be pre- 
sented in acceptable form to the Parliaments and public opinion of 
the various countries. This Agreement would have to be submitted 
for ratification, and would be published and therefore brought to 
the knowledge of everyone. Moreover, he thought it would be advis- 
able to give a very close definition of the exact purpose of the Agree- 
ment. This precaution would probably facilitate the early signature 
and ratification of the document. He would therefore like to see 
specific statements to that end included either in the Agreement 



181 

itself or in the Preamble. The important point to make clear was 
that this Agreement defined the status of any forces which might in 
certain circumstances be sent abroad, but that it did not in itself lay- 
down regulations concerning the decision to send forces, nor the 
special conditions (generally called "facilities") under which a force 
might disembark and take up its station in the country. 

13. The majority of Representatives supported the French pro- 
posal, and expressed their preference for the insertion of a passage 
into the Preamble. The Working Group finally agreed to insert the 
following passage into the Preamble : 

"Considering that the forces of one Party may be sent, by 
arrangement, to serve in the territory of another Party ; desiring 
to define the status of such forces, while in the territory of an- 
other Party ; bearing in mind, however, that the decision to send 
them and the conditions under which they will be sent, in so far 
as such conditions are not laid down by the present Agreement, 
will continue to be the subject of separate arrangements between 
the Parties concerned." 

VI. Additional Article on Colonial Territories. 

14. In the name of the United Kingdom Government, the Chair- 
man proposed a draft additional Article, designed to cover the case 
of colonial territories. He explained that the object of this Article 
was to meet certain constitutional requirements of the United King- 
dom. A number of United Kingdom colonies were within the Treaty 
area, but it was possible that no force would be stationed in their 
territory. There would therefore be no need to apply the Convention 
in their case. On the other hand, bilateral arrangement had already 
been concluded by the Bermudas and the Bahamas, and the United 
Kingdom Government would not wish to alter them. Lastly, certain 
colonies had autonomous status, which meant that, if their consent 
had to be obtained, the ratification of the Agreement by the United 
Kingdom Government themselves would have to be delayed until 
such consent had been given. This was the reason for the insertion 
of clauses, the main intention of which was to provide that the Con- 
vention could be applied separately to each colony in accordance with 
a procedure to be determined. 

15. The Portuguese Representative pointed out that a special prob- 
lem arose in connection with the Azores, which were not indeed a 
colony, but part of the metropolitan territory. Portugal and the 
United States had entered into special arrangements in this matter, 
and the Portuguese Government would not wish to alter them. The 
Portuguese Government would therefore be obliged to make a formal 



182 

reservation regarding the application of this Convention in the 
Azores. 

16. The Canadian Representative stated that his Government 
might also encounter certain difficulties with respect to Gander and 
Newfoundland. 

17. The French Representative said that he also had to deal with a 
complicated situation on account of the fact that the Treaty area 
included either territories which were integrated into metropolitan 
France, like Algeria, or colonies which had received the status of 
French Departments, or other colonies. He agreed that a wording 
should be found to meet the special difficulties which arose for in- 
dividual member countries, and he requested time to give his con- 
sideration to such wording. It would moreover appear to him neces- 
sary to recall at the outset that the Agreement did not automatically 
apply to other metropolitan territories. In addition, special arrange- 
ments should be provided in the event of the application of the 
Agreement to certain colonies, in view of the special status of cer- 
tain colonies. 

18. The Working Group agreed to insert a provision stating that 
the Agreement applied only to metropolitan territories. With respect 
to the terms on which the Agreement could apply to other non- 
metropolitan territories, a wording would be discussed at the second 
reading of the document. 

VII. Additional Article on Reservations. 

19. The Canadian Representative requested that an Article should 
be added stating that, if reservations were made, they should be 
formulated not later than the time of signature. 

20. A discussion followed to decide, first, whether reservations 
could be made, and, secondly, the time at which such reservations 
would be formulated. The Working Group recognized that the possi- 
bility of making reservations was a controversial question of inter- 
national law, and that the Working Group as such could not settle 
the question in the present Agreement. Moreover, the constitutional 
practice of certain States, such as the United States of America, did 
not empower the Executive to sign an Agreement and make reserva- 
tions without having first received the approval of the Senate. 

21. The Working Group finally agreed that it was not possible to 
exclude reservations in general, but that they should be reduced to 
the minimum. In any event, reservations, to be valid, should be 
accepted by all Contracting Parties and should be formulated as 
soon as possible. 

22. The Chairman observed that the question of SHAPE and the 



183 

Standing Group should also be considered, as well as that of military 
personnel attached to NATO civilian bodies, with a view to estab- 
lishing whether this Convention on the military status of the armed 
forces would apply to them, or whether, on the contrary, they would 
be covered by the provisions of the Convention concerning civilian 
personnel. 

23. The French Representative said that the French Government 
was at present engaged in negotiations with SHAPE, with a view 
to exploring the possibility of applying this Agreement on the Status 
to SHAPE or whether, on the contrary, it required amendment. He 
informed the Chairman that he would probably be able to give him 
the results of these proceedings and the opinion of the French Gov- 
ernment in this connection, in time for the meeting to be held on 
Monday, 30 April, or Tuesday, 1 May 1951. 

24. The Chairman said that in his opinion the question of the 
application of this Convention to SHAPE could be settled by a 
multilateral Agreement in the form of a protocol attached to this 
Convention, specifying which Articles would be applied to SHAPE 
and containing additional provisions appropriate only to SHAPE. 

25. The Italian Representative was doubtful whether the Working 
Group should examine the question of SHAPE. He thought that it 
would be necessary for the Working Group to meet in order to 
consider which provisions of this Convention applied to the other 
agencies of the North Atlantic Treaty. In his opinion, the Working 
Group should then seek instructions from the Council Deputies as 
to whether it should continue its work with this end in view. 

26. The Portuguese Representative did not share this opinion. He 
considered that, as SHAPE was an agency of the North Atlantic 
Treaty, the Working Group should examine the question whether 
this draft Convention could apply to it. He stressed the point that 
Portugal did not come under the authority of SHAPE but of SAC- 
LANT, and that it would also be necessary to consider whether this 
Convention was applicable with or without amendments to SAC- 
LANT as well as to SHAPE. 

27. The Chairman said that in his opinion the Convention which 
should be submitted to the approval of the Deputies, accompanied 
regarding privileges and immunities of the international staff. 

28. The French Representative stated that he was not certain 
whether this was the view of his Government, although he agreed 
with the United Kingdom Representative that the various members 
of the Standing Group were not national representatives and that 
most of them belonged to the diplomatic staff in Washington. 

29. The United States Representative said that the United States 



184 

view was that provisions should be made to bring the convention 
into force provisionally. However, this would necessarily be by a 
separate understanding, since a provision in the present draft could 
be no more effective than the draft itself. The United States also 
recognized that certain provisions could be implemented only by 
legislative action, and intended that such provisional application 
should be made only insofar as possible in accordance with the laws 
of the Contracting Parties. 

30. The Chairman said that such a measure would have serious dis- 
advantages, for if a Convention were provisionally implemented 
without having been ratified, there would seem to be no point in the 
Governments subsequently taking steps to ratify it. Moreover, to 
implement a Convention provisionally, pending its approval by the 
various Parliaments, detracted considerably from its legal validity. 

31. The French Representative stressed the point that there was 
nothing to prevent two Contracting Parties from taking the neces- 
sary steps to put this Agreement on the Status into force by means 
of a bilateral Agreement. 

32. The Chairman said that in his opinion the draft Convention 
should be submitted to the approval of the Deputies ( accompanied 
by a recommendation to the effect that the various Governments 
should be requested to take the necessary action to implement this 
Convention at an early date. 

33. The Belgian Representative pointed out that the Brussels 
Treaty had never been ratified, but that whenever it had been neces- 
sary to take practical action in application of the provisions con- 
tained in that Treaty, in particular with respect to all customs ques- 
tions, the various Departments concerned had been advised to follow 
the procedure laid down by the Brussels Treaty. The other Contract- 
ing Party had simply been requested to give the Belgian authorities 
sufficient notice of the entry or departure of a force or civilian com- 
ponent to allow the authority of the receiving State to take all 
necessary measures. 

34. The Italian Representative emphasized that there was nothing 
to prevent any two Parties concerned from entering into bilateral 
Agreements. He said that negotiations were at present in progress 
between the Italian and United States Governments with a view to 
implementing this Agreement pending its final ratification, and 
stated that the Italian and United States Governments would prob- 
ably sign a provisional Convention similar to the Convention under 
consideration in order to enable troops to enter Italian territory 
before the ratification of the draft Convention. 

35. The Canadian Representative said that he was in the same 



185 

position as the United States Representative. Certain provisions of 
the Agreement could not be applied to Canada before the Canadian 
Parliament had given them the force of law, which meant that the 
Convention had to be ratified by Parliament. 

36. As a result of this discussion the Working Group agreed that : 

(1) the amendment proposed by the United States Delegation 
would not be included in the draft Convention; 

(2) the draft Convention would be sent to the Council Deputies 
for consideration, accompanied by a recommendation invit- 
ing the Deputies to request their Governments to take all 
necessary action to enable provisional bilateral agreements to 
be concluded before the final ratification of this Agreement. 

MS-R(51) 17 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
30 April 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, National Representatives and International Staff. 1 

1. The Working Group proceeded to the second reading of the 
draft Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- 
nization, National Representatives and International Staff. 

2. The United Kingdom Representative said that he had not yet 
received final instructions regarding this text. Several Representa- 
tives were in the same position. The Working Group discussed the 
procedure to be adopted for the consideration of this document and 
finally agreed that it would be advisable for the Working Group to 
arrive at a text which the Governments could be expected to find 
acceptable, before submitting it to the Council Deputies. Rather than 
submit to the Council Deputies a document in which too many pas- 
sages were still the subject of disagreement, it would be preferable 
to hold a second meeting. For the time being, the Chairman pro- 
posed that the document should be considered article by article, with 
a view to ascertaining which paragraphs were still the subject of 
conflicting views. 

Article 1 

3. Several Representatives observed that the definitions appearing 
in Article 1 did not make the position of the Council Deputies in the 
Organization sufficiently clear. It was finally agreed that a para- 

i Reference : M S-D ( 51 ) 25 (20 April 1951 ) . 



186 

graph (b) should be added to the effect that "the Council" meant 
the Council itself and the Council Deputies. Paragraph (c) was 
amended accordingly. 

Article 2 

4. The Chairman doubted whether this passage now served any 
useful purpose. He proposed that it should be reserved for later 
consideration, when the discussion of the whole document had been 
completed. 

Article 3 

5. Several Representatives pointed out that it was hardly possible 
to state at this stage that Article 3 did not apply to the Standing 
Group. Although a plan was now under discussion to establish the 
status of the NATO civilian organization, the position was not the 
same with regard to the military organization. It was impossible to 
say whether the latter would subsequently be subject to the Conven- 
tion on the status of the armed forces or to the present Convention 
on the NATO civilian status. The case of military personnel to be 
attached to NATO civilian agencies should also be considered. A 
number of Representatives expressed the view that such military 
personnel should be subject in any event to the convention on the 
military status, whereas others considered that they should be gov- 
erned by the Convention on the status of the agency to which they 
were attached. The Working Group finally adopted the second point 
of view. It was agreed that the text would be redrafted by the 
Chairman in the light of the discussion held by the Working Group. 

Article 4 

6. The United States Representative expressed the opinion that 
this passage was too vague and general and that, in many cases, it 
might prevent the receiving State from taking firm and prompt 
action in security matters. He accordingly requested either that the 
text should be amended or that Article 22 of the first draft submitted 
by the United Kingdom Government should be re-inserted. 

7. The French Representative said that, although he was quite 
willing to see Article 4 amended, he could not agree to the insertion 
of former Article 22. This Article appeared only in the Agreement 
on the status of UNO specialized agencies 2 and not in the Agreement 
on the status of UNO itself. 3 In view of the political character of 
NATO, the French Government considered that the Agreement on 
the status of UNO should be taken as a model. He thought therefore 
that he could more easily accept a new version of Article 4 than the 



187 

re-insertion of Article 22. The Working Group supported this view 
and invited the Chairman to draw up a new text. 

Article 5 

8. The Portuguese representative observed that the clauses of the 
Convention relating to the Organization's juridical capacity and 
right to acquire property should not conflict with the provisions of 
the national law in the individual countries. In Portugal, the Orga- 
nization could be regarded either as an alien entity in public law or 
as a perpetual association for public purposes. In either case, it 
would be subject to certain restrictions with respect to the acquisition 
of immovable property. In the first case, these restrictions were im- 
posed by virtue of Article II of the Portuguese Constitution, which 
stipulated the conclusion of a reciprocal agreement. In the second 
case, these restrictions were imposed by virtue of Article XXXV of 
the Civil Code, which stipulated that immovable property could only 
be acquired when it was necessary to the achievement of the objects 
of the Organization. He therefore proposed that paragraph 1 of 
Article 5 should be expanded to include a wording to the effect that 
the acquisition and disposal of immovable property would be gov- 
erned by the legal provisions of the receiving State. 

9. Several Representatives pointed out that the Organization could 
clearly neither acquire nor dispose of immovable property except in 
accordance with national law and that there could be no special 
private law for NATO. Moreover, the additional passage requested 
by the Portuguese Government did not appear in other international 
Conventions. To include it in the NATO Convention would be to 
cast doubts upon previous international Conventions. It would there- 
fore be preferable to retain the present text, which was consistent 
with previous texts. 

10. The Working Group was of the opinion that there was no 
doubt that the NAT Organization could only acquire or dispose of 
immovable property in accordance with national law, and that the 
addition requested by the Portuguese Representative was accordingly 
superfluous. 

Article 5, par. 2 

11. The United States Representative requested that this para- 
graph should be expanded to rule out the possibility of subordinate 
agencies of the Organization acting as independent juridical persons. 
This was not a mere question of procedure ; it was an important point 

2 33 UNTS 262 (21 November 1947). 

3 1 UNTS 15 (13 February 1946). 



188 

of substance to make it clear that any property could be acquired 
only by the Organization itself, but not by one of its agencies. 

12. The Working Group considered that the provisions stating that 
only the Organization possessed juridical personality were adequate 
for this purpose and agreed that paragraph 2 should be deleted as 
unnecessary. 

Article 7 

13. The Portuguese Representative could not accept a provision 
which had the effect of rendering the Organization immune from 
expropriation for public purposes. If circumstances made it neces- 
sary, the Organization should not be entitled to oppose any action 
required in the common interest. He proposed that it should merely 
be stated that the Organization enjoyed the same privileges and 
immunities as foreign Embassies and Legations. 

14. A discussion followed on the nature of the Organization's 
rights. It was recognized that the regulations governing foreign 
Embassies would not always be suitable for NATO and further, that 
Article 4, relating to the abuse of privileges, could in any case be 
invoked to settle any dispute if, for example, by virtue of the present 
Article 7, the Organization were to oppose any action directed 
towards expropriation for public purposes, when such action was 
unquestionably necessary. The Working Group recognized that this 
was a matter for judicious interpretation in the light of practical 
considerations and agreed that the existing text should be retained. 

Article 10, par. (b) 

15. The Chairman proposed that in the interests of clarity the 
word "required" should be replaced by the phrase "imported or ex- 
ported." This amendment was adopted. 

16. The United States Representative considered that the exemp- 
tion from restrictions on imports and exports should be interpreted 
as meaning restrictions on quantity and not on quality. At his re- 
quest, the adjective "quantitative" was added to the word "restric- 
tions," subject to the Chairman's reservation of the view of the 
United Kingdom customs experts. 

17. On the proposal of the Belgian Representative, the Working 
Group replaced the word "sold" by the phrase "disposed of by way 
either of sale or gift" in order to make the text more specific. 

Article 12 

18. The United States Representative was not satisfied with the 
text as it stood. The United States Government, on their side, had 






189 

granted reduced telecommunications rates in its territory, to a large 
number of States; in some cases these rates were an inconvenience 
and they were endeavoring to abolish them. Moreover, the telecom- 
munications network in the United States was in the hands of private 
industry and the existing text, which provided that NATO should 
enjoy the most favorable treatment, might be a source of difficulty. 

19. The United Kingdom Representative was also dissatisfied with 
this text, and reserved the right to propose an alternative procedure 
at a later date. 

20. It was agreed that Article 12 would be reserved for future 
consideration. 

Article 19 

21. The Working Group agreed that the first line should be so 
worded as to make it clear that the text referred to officials of the 
Organization. 

Article 20, par. (b) 

22. This article provided that officials of the Organization shall 
be exempt from taxation on their salaries and emoluments and also 
from social security assessments. The Netherlands Representative 
expressed the view that these provisions implied inequality between 
national officials of the same grade according to whether they were 
employed in an international organization or in their own govern- 
ment department. The Netherlands Government considered that it 
was a questionable procedure to exempt nationals employed in an 
international organization and would prefer the system worked out 
by the fiscal experts of the Powers signatory to the Brussels Treaty, 
which specified that all officials employed by the organization would 
be taxed for the benefit of the organization. He readily understood 
however, that a matter of this kind would have to be gone into more 
thoroughly and could not be incorporated in [the] present draft. He 
accordingly requested that in these circumstances a sentence be in- 
serted stating that the existing text could be later amended by an 
exchange of notes among the Contracting Parties if they subse- 
quently came to an agreement on another method of settling the 
question of taxes. Pending an agreement on another system of taxa- 
tion, the Netherlands Government, when signing the Convention, 
would probably be obliged to make a reservation with respect to the 
exemption of the nationals of the Power in whose territory the 
Organization was established. 

23. An initial discussion was held on the form in which amend- 
ments might be made. It was generally recognized that an exchange 
of notes is an extremely unwieldy procedure and that it would per- 



190 

haps be more straightforward to adopt the procedure of an exchange 
of notes between the individual Governments and the Organization 
itself. 

24. The United States Representative expressed his agreement in 
principle with the statement made by the Netherlands Representa- 
tive. In the United States, however, an international agreement be- 
came "law" by ratification and it was impossible to amend it merely 
by an act of the Executive. 

25. The Belgian Representative considered that, whatever fiscal 
procedure was adopted for NATO officials, it was essential that the 
matter should be studied, not only from the point of view of taxes 
in particular, but also from the point of view of the general status 
of international officials. A meeting should be called of competent 
experts, including representatives of the various Ministries concerned 
(particularly the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance and Justice), 
with a view to arriving at recommendations within the NATO frame- 
work which might afterwards be used within the broader framework 
of other international organizations. He would like a reference to a 
recommendation on these lines to be included in the covering report. 

26. The United Kingdom Representative thought that if a system 
of exemptions were not adopted for all countries, it would be very 
difficult to obtain Parliamentary ratification of a Convention imply- 
ing the exemption of United Kingdom officials but not of the officials 
of any other nationality. 

27. The Secretary pointed out that in any event the Deputies had 
agreed on a salary scale similar to the OEEC scale, specifying that 
such salaries were not subject to tax ; accordingly, if any taxes were 
levied, the salaries in question would have, to be raised and the 
member States of NATO would therefore have to increase the size 
of their contributions. 

28. The United Kingdom Representative proposed that, in these 
circumstances, the OEEC text should be adopted, which simply pro- 
vided that the fiscal exemption system would be the same as that 
granted to other international organizations. 

29. The Canadian Representative proposed that the existing text 
should be retained with the addition of a sentence stating that exemp- 
tion was granted on condition that a member State could tax its own 
nationals, unless the member State agreed to a system whereby the 
officials were taxed by the international organization itself. 

30. The Working Group considered that for the time being it 
could do no more than insert the two texts side by side into the draft 
with a view to subsequent discussion of the matter. 

31. The French Representative pointed out the ambiguous char- 



191 

acter of the existing wording of the provision stating that officials 
shall be exempt from social security assessments. Social security con- 
tributions were offset by considerable benefits. It was thus a very 
different matter from taxation. Exemption from social security con- 
tributions was accordingly a drawback rather than an advantage. 
Was it the intention of the present wording that officials should be 
exempt from contribution and at the same time excluded from enjoy- 
ment of social security benefits, or that they should be exempt from 
contributions but were nevertheless entitled to such benefits? 

32. After some discussion, it was agreed that the text should be 
amended to state that officials were exempt from the obligation to 
contribute to the social security scheme. This did not preclude offi- 
cials from contributing to the scheme if they so desired. 

Article 20, par. (d) 

33. The Canadian Representative and the Secretary explained that 
it was necessary to retain this Article in order to enable officials of 
the Organization who were only temporarily resident and not perma- 
nently domiciled in the country in which the Organization was lo- 
cated, to benefit from the currency regulations applying to non- 
residents. If they were subject to the regulations applying to resi- 
dents, their relations with their country of origin would be made 
very difficult. 

Article 20, par. (g) 

34. The Belgian Representative requested that a paragraph be 
inserted with a view to allowing the duty-free importation of their 
private cars by officials of the Organization. He considered this 
amendment necessary since a number of countries did not include 
the private car in the furniture which might be imported duty-free 
as already provided by the draft Convention. This privilege was 
explicitly accorded to members of the armed forces, and there were 
no grounds for refusing the same privilege to the civilian staff of 
the Organization. The Working Group adopted this proposed addi- 
tion. 

Article 21 

35. The Chairman reserved the view of the United Kingdom Gov- 
ernment with regard to this Article. He also made it clear that the 
United Kingdom Government would not accord to NATO officials 
any exemptions connected with income tax, except with respect to 
taxes on remuneration received by them in their capacity as such 
officials. 



192 

Article 14 

36. Article 14 was the subject of an involved discussion, from 
which the following main points emerged : 

(a) A number of Representatives raised objections to the exist- 
ing text of the Article, which provided that the members of 
the staff of a national Representative entitled to enjoy 
diplomatic privileges would be designated by agreement with 
the Government of the receiving State. The Chairman ex- 
plained that it was reasonable to expect the receiving State 
to desire to exercise a certain degree of control over the 
numbers of staff enjoying diplomatic privileges, in order to 
prevent those numbers from becoming inflated. It was rec- 
ognized that the Article did not depart from customary 
practice in the designation of diplomatic staff and was not 
intended to limit the staff of national Representatives but 
merely to determine by agreement with the receiving State 
which among the staff would enjoy diplomatic status. 

(b) Only one principal permanent Representative to the Orga- 
nization was foreseen in each of the territories in which the 
Organization had headquarters. It was made clear in the 
course of discussion that there was no doubt that this Repre- 
sentative had the status of the head of a diplomatic mission, 
with all the privileges accompanying this status. 

Article 15, par. 1(d) 

37. The Working Group agreed that the Article should lay down 
the right not only to receive but also to send correspondence by 
courier or in sealed bags. 

Article 15, par. 1(e) 

38. The United States Representative pointed out that Article 15 
did not make it very clear that it was referring to Representatives 
who were temporarily present in the receiving State. The Chairman 
said that it was difficult to be more specific without overlooking a 
certain number of persons. The wording was necessarily somewhat 
vague, in order to ensure that no person was overlooked who might 
be working with national delegations. The Working Group finally 
agreed to retain the existing text, on the understanding that it ap- 
plied primarily to Representatives whose presence in the receiving 
State was merely temporary. 



193 

Article 15, par. 2 

39. It was agreed that the word "legal" should be inserted before 
the word "incidence" in the first line. No amendment was required 
to the French text. 

Article 15, par. 3 

40. The United States Representative proposed that the entire 
paragraph should be deleted. The Working Group adopted this pro- 
posal, on the understanding that the immunity from legal process 
referred to would continue to be accorded to Representatives, not- 
withstanding that they were no longer engaged in the discharge of 
their duties. 

Article 15, par. 4 

41. It was agreed that this paragraph should be renumbered as 
"paragraph 3" and that the word "alternates" should be replaced 
by the word "advisers." 

Article 16 

42. It became apparent in the course of the discussion on Article 
16 that it was not very clear to what staff this Article applied. The 
Chairman stated that, as a general rule, it applied to secretarial 
staff (typists, registry clerks) accompanying temporary Representa- 
tives. It also applied to secretarial staff accompanying permanent 
Representatives insofar as, for one reason or another, such staff 
was not covered by the privileges accorded to the retinue of the 
permanent Representative, as provided under Article 14. 

43. Several Representatives pointed out that the privileges laid 
down for staff referred to in Article 16 were incomplete, particularly 
with respect to the importation of furniture. It was finally agreed 
that the list of privileges covered by Article 16 should be expanded 
to include the privilege of the duty-free importation of furniture 
provided by Article 20, paragraph (f), and that a similar clause 
should be added to Article 15. 

44. The Working Group agreed to request the Chairman to pre- 
pare a new text for Articles 14, 15, and 16. The French Rep- 
resentative stressed the necessity of preventing the insertion into 
the text of clauses too explicit in wording, which might be regarded 
as reflecting unfavorably on the States represented in the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization. He would prefer to see the deletion 
of the entire clause requiring the approval of the sending State to 
the designation of staff entitled to enjoy diplomatic privileges. 



194 



Article 17 



45. The Chairman pointed out that the wording of the last 
sentence of Article 17, relating to the case where immunity might 
be waived if, in the opinion of the member State, the immunity 
would impede the course of justice and if it could be waived with- 
out prejudice to the purposes of the Organization, was not repro- 
duced exactly in Articles 22 and 24. It was finally agreed to amend 
Articles 17 and 24 to bring them into line with the wording of 
Article 22. It was also made clear that the term "in his opinion" 
applied not only to the phrase conveying the idea that the immunity 
would impede the course of justice, but also to the phrase stating 
that the immunity might be waived without prejudice to the interests 
of the Organization. 

Article 18 

46. The wording of the Article was amended to specify that the 
provisions of Articles 14 to 16 shall not require any State to grant 
any immunity or privilege to any person who was its national, or 
was or had been its Representative, or a member of the staff of the 
Representative. 

//. Program of Work of the Working Group. 

47. The Chairman said that he would be unable to obtain in- 
structions from his Government before the end of the week. He 
wondered which would be the most appropriate procedure to follow 
in order to reach agreement at an early date. It was finally agreed 
that the Working Group would meet again on 15 May 1951, to 
reconsider the draft Agreement, in the hope that the Representatives 
would meanwhile have received firm instructions from their Govern- 
ments, enabling them to reach a final agreement and thus to sub- 
mit the document to the Deputies immediately after 15 May. It 
was pointed out that the uncertainty prevailing among the Rep- 
resentatives on the possibility of reaching agreement was mainly 
due to the fact that the view of the United Kingdom Government 
was not yet known. The Chairman undertook to inform the Rep- 
resentatives of his Government's view as soon as he was in a posi- 
tion to do so. If the United Kingdom view was such that it seemed 
unlikely that a useful discussion could be held on 15 May, the date 
of the meeting would have to be postponed. 

48. The Chairman further invited the Representatives to notify 
the Secretariat as soon as possible of their observations in order that 
they might be circulated to all the members of the Working Group. 



195 

MS-R(51) 18 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
1 May 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of Military Forces. 1 

1. The Working Group proceeded to the second reading of the 
draft Agreement on the Status of the Military Forces. 

Preamble 

2. The Working Group agreed that the considerations expressed 
in the preamble should be presented in a different order, placing the 
second consideration last. 

Article I 

3. The United States Representative recalled that, in connection 
with this Article, he had raised the question of the method whereby 
it could be made clear that the Agreement applied to the political 
subdivisions of a Contracting Party. This problem arose for the 
United States, since they were a federation, and the individual 
federal States had legislative autonomy. If no clause to this effect 
were included in the Agreement, the individual States would be 
free not to apply the Agreement and this might be the cause of 
considerable difficulties, such as those which had already arisen in 
connection with the Agreement on UNO. 

4. Several Representatives expressed the view that, although they 
had no objections to the insertion of clauses to this effect, the word- 
ing should not be such as to create difficulties for non-federal States. 
If the proposed text could be interpreted as applying also to the 
administrative subdivisions of non-federal States, such as municipal 
authorities, the consequence would be that such States would have 
to lay down special legislation to find new resources to take the 
place of the municipal rates which would not be levied under the 
terms of the Agreement. 

5. The Working Group endeavored to find a wording which would 
adequately cover both cases. Finally, it agreed on the following 
provisional text: 

"This Agreement shall apply to the authorities of political 
sub-divisions of the Contracting Parties, within their territories 
to which the Agreement extends, in the same manner as it 






i Reference: MS-D(51) 28 (27 April 1951) 



196 

applies to the central Government, of those Contracting Parties, 
providing however, that property owned by political sub- 
divisions shall not be considered to be property owned by a 
Contracting Party within the meaning of Article VIII." 

6. The United States Representative accepted this text for the 
time being, while reserving the right to have the question reviewed 
in the course of the discussion on the document by the Deputies. 

Article III, par. 5 

7. The United States Representative said that this Article should 
be so restricted as to ensure that the sending State would not be 
obliged to receive a person who was not a national of the sending 
State and who had been recruited locally. The Chairman pointed 
out that it would also be advisable to ensure that the receiving 
State was not precluded from handing over to the sending State 
a person of a third nationality recruited by the sending State and 
brought by the latter into the receiving State. The last sentence 
was amended to read as follows: 

"This paragraph shall only apply to non-nationals of the 
receiving State who have entered the receiving State as members 
of a force or civilian component or their dependents or for 
the purpose of becoming such members." 

Article VII, par. 1 

8. It was recalled that it had been previously agreed that the 
phrase "persons subject to the military law" should be replaced 
by the phrase "members of a force or civilian component." 

9. The Chairman pointed out that this paragraph did not call 
for the amendment which had been made in other Articles, since 
there was no risk of misunderstanding its meaning. The original 
wording was retained. 

10. The French Representative was prepared to accept this word- 
ing, but felt bound to point out that the phrase "subject to military 
law" had a very restricted meaning in France in peacetime. This 
wording would therefore appreciably reduce the powers of France 
as a sending State. The French Government, on their side, would 
regard members of a force or civilian component as falling within 
the scope of the paragraph. The Italian and Belgian Representa- 
tives associated themselves with this statement. 

11. The Working Group agreed that this official statement by the 
Representatives of France, Italy and Belgium should be placed on 
record. 



197 



Article VII, par. 3(a) (ii) 



12. The Canadian Representative proposed that the provision 
should be expanded to include a further definition of offenses aris- 
ing out of any act or omission done in the performance of official 
duty, which would be worded as follows in French: "et rentrant 
dans l'ordre des devoirs de l'interesse." The Working Group came 
to the conclusion that it was very difficult to find an equivalent 
expression in English and, secondly, to define the circumstances in 
which an offense could be considered as falling within the limits 
of the duties of the person concerned. The point would chiefly arise 
in a few individual cases where special circumstances were involved : 
an example had already been given at a previous meeting (see 
Summary Record: MS-R(51) 14, paragraph 30). 

Article VII, par. 5, 6 and 7 

13. The Chairman proposed that these paragraphs should be 
replaced in a more logical order. This amendment was adopted. 

Article VII, par. 7-8 

14. The Working Group adopted the revised wording of this 
passage, which did not alter the substance, but was merely intended 
to clarify the meaning. 

Article IX 

15. The Netherlands Representative recalled that he had sub- 
mitted a proposal to the effect that this Article should include 
provisions concerning the way in which forces were to be supplied 
with local currency. These provisions were designed to restrict 
the circulation of foreign currencies, to reduce to the minimum the 
local currencies made available to the troops of the sending State 
and lastly, to enable the receiving State to receive an exchange 
value in cash for the goods which it had supplied. The Netherlands 
Government now agreed that such provisions would be out of place 
in the present Convention. The proposed amendment was accord- 
ingly withdrawn. The Netherlands Deputy would, however, raise 
the question at the discussion to be held by the Deputies. 

Article IX, par. 3 

16. At the request of the Canadian Representative, the word 
"bilateral" was deleted from the beginning of the paragraph. 



198 



Article VIII, par. 1 and 3 



17. The Belgian Representative considered that, although it had 
been the intention when wording this paragraph to place both 
parties concerned in a claim for damages on the same footing, 
this result had not been achieved. For example, if a French vehicle, 
which was used for NATO purposes and belonged to a French 
force in Belgium, caused damage to a Belgian service vehicle, only 
the damage caused to the French vehicle would be covered. The 
Chairman pointed out that the existing text covered the damage 
caused to both vehicles. He thought that it would be undesirable 
to delete the reference to the fact that the damage was caused by 
a vehicle used in connection with the operation of the North Atlantic 
Treaty, since in this case, the scope of this Article would become 
far too wide. 

18. The NorAvegian Representative, supported by the Danish 
Representative, said that his Government did not approve the 
present wording of paragraph 1 with respect to maritime damages. 
The definition given in the present text was too vague, particularly 
in view of the complexity of maritime insurance matters. He further 
considered that the present wording of paragraph 3 was unaccept- 
able. In these circumstances, he would prefer to return to the 
original proposal put forward by the Netherlands Representative 
in MS-D(51) 21, to the effect that the scope of Article VIII should 
be restricted to men-of-war and to auxiliary technical vessels. 

19. The Working Group discussed which types of vessels were 
or were not covered by the Articles in question. The Chairman 
said that, as far as insurance was concerned, all vessels were out- 
side the scope of paragraph 3, with the exception of vessels for 
which the Contracting Party was its own insurer. He accordingly 
proposed that the term "or its insurer" should be deleted from the 
end of this paragraph. It would thus be clear that the merchant 
navy was outside the scope of this paragraph. 

20. With respect to paragraph 1, the problem was to determine 
the category of auxiliary vessels. Were they or were they not owned 
by the armed forces of one of the member countries? The United 
Kingdom expert said that, as and when merchant vessels were 
converted for use as military transports, such vessels were no 
longer regarded as privately owned, and were taken over by the 
State. The Working Group finally came to the conclusion that 
this discussion, which involved complicated technical points con- 
nected with maritime law and insurance law, meant that it was 
impossible to reach a solution at this stage. It was agreed that the 
existing text would be retained for the time being. 



199 

21. The Norwegian Representative said that he was obliged to 
refer the point to his Government. 

22. The Danish Representative requested that the record should 
make it quite clear that paragraph 1 did not apply to ships under 
the management of the Defense Shipping Authority, unless they 
were permanently withdrawn from the NATO Shipping Pool. It 
was agreed that this clarification would be the subject of an Ad- 
dendum to Summary Record MS-R(51) 10. 2 

23. The United States Representative again raised the question 
of third party claims for compensation for damages arising out of 
maritime incidents. He thought that the scope of the Agreement 
should be wider and should include a procedure for settling such 
claims. If the Working Group agreed in principle to this proposal, 
the United States Government would be prepared to restrict the 
scope of this Article to territorial waters. 

24. The Chairman pointed out that this object could be achieved 
by deleting the whole of subparagraph (h) of paragraph 5. The 
United States Representative said that the deletion of this passage 
did not dispose of the problem of the authority which should settle 
the dispute. In these circumstances, the United States Deputy 
would raise the question when the draft Agreement was under con- 
sideration by the Deputies. 

Article VIII, par. 2(a) and (b) 

25. The United States Representative returned to the arbitration 
problem. There was of course no question of casting doubts upon 
the integrity of the arbitration authorities of the receiving State. 
The United States Government merely pointed out that this para- 
graph was concerned with procedure of an international character 
and that disputes should therefore be settled in accordance with 
international law and custom. There were thus no grounds for 
stipulating that the arbitrator should be selected from among 
nationals of the receiving State alone. 

26. The Italian Representative opposed the adoption of an amend- 
ment of this effect. The Italian Government preferred to abide by 
the wording of the first document as it had been drawn up after 
the discussion held in February (D-D (51) 57). The Chairman 
pointed out that the wording which the Working Group had most 
recently arrived at already represented a compromise with the 
United States view. 



2 This addendum supplied the text of the fourth and fifth sentences of para- 
graph 4 of MS-R(51) 10 (19 April 1951), where they have been inserted by the 
editor. 






200 

27. The Working Group agreed that the wording should be 
retained in its present form. 

Article VIII, par. 2(f) 

28. It was pointed out that the meaning of the first sentence 
following the table was not very clear. The Working Group agreed 
to return to the original wording which stated that the claim was 
waived, not if the damage was less than the amount shown in the 
table, but up to the amounts shown in the table. 

Article VIII, par. 5 

29. The Chairman thought that the Article was not clearly 
worded. The chief difficulty was to determine what type of re- 
sponsibility was referred to in this Article. Was it a legal or a 
moral responsibility? 

30. The Working Group finally agreed that the word "legally" 
should precede the word "responsible." This meant that the law 
of the receiving State would apply in the case of acts done by 
members of the force of this State. The paragraph was finally 
worded as follows: 

"Claims arising out of acts or omissions of members of a 
force or civilian component in the performance of their official 
duty or any other act or omission or occurrence for which a 
force or_-a civilian component is legally responsible." 

Article VIII, par. 5(e) (ii) 

31. Although the Netherlands Representative did not propose 
any amendments to the wording, he wished it to be clearly under- 
stood that, where more than one State was responsible for the 
damage, the share of responsibility of each State concerned would 
be measured by the same yardstick. The Working Group agreed 
with this opinion and recognized that the share of responsibility 
should be decided in accordance with the law of the receiving 
State. 

32. In paragraph (e), it was made clear that the receiving State 
was alone legally responsible and that it was not for the court 
itself to decide how the costs should be shared. It was incumbent 
on the receiving State to decide the degree of responsibility for the 
damage; the size of the various contributions was [to be] decided 
later in accordance with the provisions of the present Agreement. 
In the event that a court took it upon itself to distribute the amount 






201 

of compensation, it was understood that the Contracting Parties 
would disregard such distribution. 

33. In paragraph (iii), the Chairman said that under United 
Kingdom law it was impossible to identify the author of the dam- 
age. The only possible course was to appeal to arbitration, as 
United Kingdom law ruled out the possibility of instituting pro- 
ceedings against nominal defendants. The Working Group took 
note of the Chairman's statement. 

Article VIII, par. 5(h) 

34. The Chairman said that paragraph 5(h) should be reworded 
to bring it into line with paragraph 5(e). 

Article VIII, new par. 7 

35. The Chairman thought that it would be advisable to insert 
a new paragraph dealing with damages arising out of the un- 
authorized use of a vehicle. The Working Group adopted this 
proposal. The new paragraph was worded as follows: 

"Claims arising out of the unauthorised use of any vehicle 
of the armed Services of a sending State shall be dealt with 
in accordance with paragraph 6 of this Article." 
A clause was inserted into former paragraph 7, which now became 
paragraph 8, to bring it into line with the new paragraph 7. 

Article VIII, former par. 8 

36. The Working Group agreed that this paragraph should be 
deleted, which meant that States could avail themselves of im- 
munity from jurisdiction before the courts of the receiving State. 
The Netherlands Representative reserved his position. 

Article X, par. 1 

37. It had been proposed at a previous meeting that the word 
"dependents" should be inserted into this Article. The Chairman 
said that he could not agree to include dependents in this passage. 
Dependents were under no obligation to enter the receiving State. 
Moreover, it was assumed that they were supported by the remunera- 
tion of the members of the force. If they wished to bring additional 
income derived from other sources into the receiving State, they 
did so at their own risk. 

38. The Canadian Representative proposed that a clause should 
be inserted providing that, in the case of dependents not covered 



202 

by Article X, the States concerned should take steps to prevent 
double taxation. Several Representatives stressed the point that it 
was impossible to conclude agreements on double taxation solely 
for one particular category of person. 

39. It was agreed that this question in particular would be 
brought to the attention of the fiscal authorities of the individual 
countries. 

Article XI, par. 2 

40. It was agreed that the three sentences of paragraph 2 should 
be designated by the letters (a), (b) and (c), in order that sub- 
sequent paragraphs could refer merely to paragraph 2(b), with 
which the subsequent paragraphs were alone concerned. 

Article XI, par. 4 

41. The English text was amended in accordance with the word- 
ing previously adopted, which stated that where duty-free imports 
were concerned an agreement would have to be concluded on the 
customs documents to be produced, in order to prevent the spread of 
military information. 

Article XI, par. 12 

42. At the request of the Belgian Kepresentative, the word 
"bonded" was deleted from the term "bonded warehouses," as this 
adjective added nothing to the meaning and was liable to lead to 
confusion in the French translation. In addition, the definition of 
the word "duty" was amended in the English text in order to bring 
it into line with the French wording. 

Article XX 

43. The French Representative stated that his Government would 
probably be able to give their agreement to the text of Article XX, 
on condition that it was amended as follows: 

(a) In paragraph 2, the word "however" should be inserted 
at the beginning of the sentence in order to mark the con- 
trast with paragraph 1. 

(b) The extension of the Agreement to any territory should 
be made subject, if the State making the declaration con- 
sidered it necessary, to the conclusion of a special agree- 
ment between that State and each of the sending States. 
This amendment was necessary in order to make it possible 
to adapt the Agreement to certain colonies. 



203 

(c) It should be stated that the Agreement shall extend to 
the territories named therein thirty days after the receipt 
of the notification of the extension, or thirty days after 
the conclusion of the special agreement applying the text 
to such territories. 

44. The Working Group adopted this amendment. 

//. General Procedure. 

45. The Working Group discussed the program of its future 
work. It was agreed that the Chairman would prepare a covering 
report to the Deputies which would be as concise as possible. This 
report would state that a number of delegations had made reserva- 
tions on certain points, but those points would not be described in 
detail. In order to ensure that the text submitted to the Deputies 
had the maximum chance of being rapidly adopted, it was agreed 
that the draft drawn up after this discussion 3 would be transmitted 
as soon as possible to the Deputies, together with the request that 
they should seek instructions from their Governments. No time limit 
would be fixed for the communication of these instructions, but 
the hope was expressed that they would be given as soon as possible. 
The draft would then be placed on the agenda for consideration by 
the Deputies. 

D-R(51) 37 
Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 9 May 1951 



///. Report by the Working Group on the Status of Forces. 

23. The Council Deputies had before them the report by the 
Working Group on the status of the armed forces containing a 
revise of the draft Convention, which had been proposed after 
taking into consideration the various amendments submitted by 
Governments. 1 

24. The Chairman of the Working Group had indicated in his 
report that there were one or two points which certain Govern- 
ments might wish to raise again when the draft was considered 
by the Council Deputies. In order to accelerate consideration of 



3 D-D (51) 127 (7 May 1951), containing the revised draft of the Agreement 
and a covering report. 

i D-D (51) 127 (7 May 1951), containing the revised draft of the Status of 
Forces Agreement and a covering report by the Working Group. 



204 

this revised draft, he suggested that it should be transmitted to the 
respective Governments immediately with the request for their 
comments to be submitted to the Council Deputies not later than 
23 May. Any general comments which Governments might wish 
to make could then be placed on record when the draft was finally 
considered. 

25. The Council Deputies: 

(1) agreed that D-D (51) 127 should be transmitted to Govern- 
ments forthwith and that comments should reach the 
Council Deputies not later than 23 May. 

(2) agreed [subject to reservation by the United Kingdom] 2 
that the Convention should be signed by the Council 
Deputies on behalf of their Governments. 

(3) expressed their appreciation to the Working Group for 
the speedy and efficient manner in which they had prepared 
the revised draft. 



D-R(51) 41 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 24 May 
1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of NATO Forces. 1 

1. The Chairman 2 recalled that the draft Agreement which was 
now before the Deputies 3 was the outcome of negotiations which 
had been carried out in two stages. One draft, which had been 
drawn up following a first series of meetings of the Working 
Group, had been referred to the Governments for consideration. 
When their observations had been submitted, the Working Group 
held a second session and agreed on the text which was now sub- 
mitted to the Deputies and represented therefore a very large 
measure of compromise. The Chairman therefore hoped that no 
further amendments would be made on the substance of this 
document. 



2 The words in square brackets are found inserted by hand in copies of this 
Summary Record on file in both Paris and Washington. They are probably a 
later correction requested by the United Kingdom Deputy. 

i Previous reference: D-R(51) 37, par. 23-25 (9 May 1951). 

2 United States Deputy. 

3 D-D (51) 127 (7 May 1951). 






205 

2. Mr. Evans, Chairman of the Working Group, had no special 
comments to make, except that it had been suggested at a meeting 
of the Working Group that the Deputies might discuss the question 
of the provisional implementation of the Agreement before its 
ratification by the various Parliaments. The Working Group had 
not thought that it would be possible to provide for such provisional 
implementation in a clause of the Agreement itself, but that the 
Deputies might pass a resolution recommending their Governments 
to take steps to ensure such provisional implementation. 

3. The United Kingdom Deputy said that his Government agreed 
to accept the text as it stood and also approved the way in which 
the Working Group had approached the problems of SHAPE 
and the Standing Group. He had no objection to a provisional 
implementation of the Agreement. 

4. The Norwegian Deputy said that his Government was prepared 
to accept the Agreement, subject to the usual reservations regarding 
Parliamentary ratification. He wished, however, to place the follow- 
ing comment on record in connection with Article VIII, paragraph 
l(ii) and paragraph 3, referring to damage caused by vessels. 
The Norwegian Government would have preferred the Agreement 
to apply only to men-of-war. His Government could, however, 
accept Article VIII in its present form, in view of the deletion of 
the words "or its insurer" from Article VIII, paragraph 3, which 
made it clear that the Agreement did not apply to ships which 
were insured, and in view of the provisions in Article XV regard- 
ing the application of the Agreement in the event of hostilities. 

5. The Danish Deputy associated himself with the Norwegian 
Deputy's statement. 

6. The Portuguese Deputy recalled that, during the discussions of 
the Working Group, the Portuguese Delegation had proposed, among 
other alterations, that the wording of Article VI, regarding the 
possession and carriage of arms, should be similar to that of the cor- 
responding Article of the Brussels Agreement. They had also pro- 
posed the addition, to paragraph 3(a) (ii) of Article VII, of a provi- 
sion leaving it to the arbitrator referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 
VIII, to decide when an offense had been committed in the per- 
formance of official duty. M. Queiroz requested that his Government's 
interest in seeing these alterations accepted be placed on record in the 
minutes of the present meeting. 

7. The Portuguese Deputy went on to say that, if all member na- 
tions wished to approve the Agreement on the Status in its present 
form, he had instructions to state that the Portuguese Government, 
in their desire once again to smooth out difficulties even when they 



206 

were convinced of the Tightness of their own point of view, would 
also give their approval to the present draft as it stood, and author- 
ized their representative on the Council to sign the Agreement. He 
formally repeated, however, the reservation, which had already been 
made and justified in the Working Group, to the effect that this 
Agreement was only applicable to the territory of continental Portu- 
gal, with the exclusion of the adjacent islands and the overseas 
provinces. 

8. With respect to the first point raised by the Portuguese Deputy, 
Mr. Evans explained that the reason for the present wording was that 
questions regarding the possession and carriage of arms should be 
left to the discretion of the authorities of the forces and not to those 
of the receiving State. With respect to the second point, the Working 
Group had considered that only the authorities of the force could 
decide in the case of an offense whether or not it had been committed 
in the performance of official duty. Since Article VII dealt with 
criminal offenses, it was desirable to ensure that punitive action could 
be taken as promptly as possible, which would rule out the possibility 
of intervention by an arbitrator. 

9. The Netherlands Deputy said that his Government had wel- 
comed paragraph 8 of Article VIII as it had appeared in the pre- 
vious draft of 27 April. 4 This paragraph gave an international rule 
regarding the competence of the courts of the receiving State in the 
case of contractual claims arising out of the performance of official 
duty. Under that rule, all Contracting Parties were placed in the 
same position. In the new wording, the paragraph concerned had 
been deleted, which meant that no rule of international law to this 
effect would now exist. As a result, each Contracting Party was free 
to follow its own law. At the moment, the law in the Netherlands 
was such that a foreign Government could not be brought before a 
Netherlands court. His Government wished it to be understood, how- 
ever, that with the new text the Netherlands Government might very 
well alter the law if they considered that alteration necessary. 

10. The second comment made by the Netherlands Deputy related 
to paragraph 7(b) of Article IX, which provided that all the goods 
and services furnished to a force or civilian component should be 
paid for in local currency. That rule offered the best solution to the 
problem of payment in peacetime. In time of war, however, it might 
frequently happen that goods or services which were furnished to 
allied forces could not be replaced on account of the shortage of the 
goods or transportation difficulties. The increased amount of local 



4MS-D(51) 28 (27 April 1951) 



207 

currency brought into circulation by allied purchases might thus 
exert a strong inflationary pressure, which would either drive up 
prices or, if prices were controlled, might lead to excess purchasing 
power. This might lead to traffic in scarce goods on such a scale as to 
disturb the economy of the receiving State. The Netherlands Govern- 
ment felt that it would not be fair for the ensuing burden to be borne 
in full by the receiving State; therefore, the payments effected in 
accordance with paragraph 7 of Article IX should only be considered 
as a provisional settlement, unless it were explicitly recognized as 
being a final settlement by the receiving State; in other words, after 
the hostilities had come to an end, it would be necessary to reconsider 
how a final settlement could be effected. The guiding principle should 
be that it was the real value of the goods and services delivered by 
the receiving State which should be taken into account in the conclu- 
sion of a final settlement between the sending State and the receiving 
State. Agreements on this basis should be concluded as soon as prac- 
ticable, either during the war or afterwards. The Netherlands 
Government would therefore accept paragraph 7 of Article IX in its 
present wording only with the reservation that they receive from all 
other Contracting Parties, desirous of applying this paragraph in 
wartime on Netherlands territory, an assurance to the effect that they 
accepted the above-mentioned principle with regard to the Nether- 
lands. The Netherlands Government were prepared, however, to state 
that all payments which were effected in time of peace would be 
regarded as final. 

11. The Belgian Deputy associated himself with the statement by 
the Netherlands Deputy. 

12. Mr. Evans said that the Working Group had not discussed this 
question, at least not in the form in which it was now presented by 
the Netherlands Deputy. 

13. The Netherlands Deputy inquired whether the term "North 
Atlantic Treaty area," which appeared in Article XX, applied to the 
Mediterranean and to Malta, in particular. 

14. The United Kingdom Deputy said that it was laid down in 
Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty that it applied to "the territory of any 
of the Parties in Europe, etc." During the preliminary discussions in 
Washington, it had been agreed that this phrase should be interpreted 
as meaning that Malta and Gibraltar, but not Cyprus, would be 
covered by the Treaty. 

15. The French Deputy said that, under French national law, 
Algeria was not an integral part, of Metropolitan France. This did 
not mean, of course, that the Agreement did not apply to Algeria 
under the provisions of Article XX. 



208 

16. The Italian Deputy said that he would like to see an amend- 
ment made to Article VIII, paragraph 5(b), which would be difficult 
to apply in its present form in view of Italian national regulations. 
He proposed that the present wording should be replaced by the 
following text : "The receiving State may settle any such claims and 
pay the amount agreed upon or determined by adjudication, in its 
currency." A similar alteration would be required in paragraph 
5(d) and paragraph 5(e). 

17. Mr. Evans pointed out that this amendment would substantially 
weaken the force of the paragraph and might lead to the conclusion 
that the receiving State could exercise a discretionary right not to 
make the payment. He made it clear that the arrangement which was 
described in paragraph (b) by the word "settle" was intended to be a 
settlement by agreement with the Party concerned. 

18. The Italian Deputy said that he could accept the alternative 
solution of retaining the present wording of paragraph (b), while 
amending paragraph 5 (b) and (d) by adding the phrase "or to be 
paid" after the word "paid." 

19. The Luxembourg Deputy said that paragraph 5(f) of Article 
VIII provided that, in cases where a claim amounted to a figure 
which would cause one of the Contracting Parties serious hardship, 
especially when the country was small, a different method of settle- 
ment might be adopted with the agreement of the North Atlantic 
Council. The present wording restricted this possibility to the case of 
claims submitted under the terms of paragraphs (e) and (b) of para- 
graph 5 of Article VIII. He would like this possibility to extend to 
all cases in which a claim for compensation was submitted under the 
terms of Article VIII. This would not, of course, affect the proce- 
dural clauses of Article VIII. He proposed the following text which 
would become Article VIII, [paragraph] 11 : 

In cases where the application of the provisions of Article VIII 
would cause a Contracting Party serious economic or financial 
hardship, it may exceptionally request the North Atlantic Council 
to arrange a settlement of a different nature. 

20. Mr. Evans said that the Working Group had not raised this 
question but that there appeared to be no objection a priori to the 
request of the Luxembourg Deputy. 

21. The Canadian Deputy stated that the question was at present 
under consideration by the Canadian Cabinet and that he had not 
received firm instructions. He wished, however, to draw the attention 
of the Deputies to paragraph 2 of Article X. The end of this para- 
graph had been added in the course of the discussions of the Working 
Group, and the Canadian Government would be desirous of making 



209 

it quite clear that the additional passage is intended to provide only 
that members of a force or civilian component are not to escape any 
tax which, in the absence of an agreement, would be levied on them 
as non-residents. In other words, the Canadian Government wish 
to ensure that this provision does not constitute such a derogation 
from the general exemption given in paragraph 1 of Article X that 
members of a force or civilian component could be taxed as residents 
on everything other than salary emoluments and tangible movable 
property. 

22. Mr. Evans replied that this addition in no way affected the 
other provisions of Article X. It had been inserted at the request of 
one delegation, and the other delegations had raised no objection to 
adding the wording in question. The following illustration of the 
object of the proposal had been given. A United States citizen, resi- 
dent in the United States, owned property in the United Kingdom in 
respect of which he was liable to income tax. If he was recruited into 
a United States force and stationed in the United Kingdom with that 
force, this fact should not have the effect of exempting him from pay- 
ment of the taxes to which he was previously liable. 

23. The French Deputy stated that his Government was prepared 
to accept the Agreement in the present form. He recalled once more 
that this Agreement reflected a large measure of compromise and that 
it was important not to disturb the balance of views which had been 
established with great difficulty, particularly in the case of Article 
VIII, by inserting new provisions. 

24. The Belgian Deputy was also prepared to accept the Agree- 
ment, subject to the reservation that no substantial amendment was 
made to the text. 

25. The Chairman said that the Agreement would be regarded as a 
treaty. It w T ould accordingly be subject to the normal United States 
legislative process, which involved ultimate ratification by the Senate 
and prior consultation with legislators. For these reasons he was not 
yet authorized to sign the Agreement. Subject to this reservation, the 
United States Government were prepared to accept the Agreement, 
but he was bound to make their position clear on the three following 
points : 

(a) The United States Government would wish the Agreement 
to exclude from the force as defined in Article I, paragraph 
1, those military members of a diplomatic mission, such as 
military attaches or certain members of the United States 
Military Advisory Groups in Europe, who already enjoyed 
certain privileges. The status of such individuals could be 
settled by bilateral agreements. 



210 

(b) The United States Government desired to set up a system of 
"Army Post Offices" for members of forces, civilian com- 
ponents and their dependents, subject of course to the laws 
of the receiving State and to the provisions of the Agree- 
ment relating to customs regulations, etc. 

(c) Lastly, they considered that a resolution should be adopted, 
a draft of which the Chairman circulated, with a view to 
providing for the provisional implementation of the Agree- 
ment before ratification. 

26. With respect to the Chairman's first point, Mr. Evans said the 
text already provided for the possibility of bilateral agreements in 
the case of certain units and formations. In order to meet the wishes 
of the United States Government, it would be sufficient to add the 
w T ords "or individuals" to the existing text. 

27. The Icelandic Deputy recalled that an agreement between Ice- 
land and the United States had been signed in Reykjavik on 5 May 
1951, and that on 8 May 1951 an Annex to that Agreement had been 
signed concerning the status of United States personnel and prop- 
erty. 5 While that Agreement was being negotiated, the London draft 
Agreement regarding the status of the forces of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization was borne in mind, with the result that the 
Agreement on the status annexed to the Iceland-United States Agree- 
ment followed the general lines of the London draft, although a few 
changes had been made to take account of local conditions. During 
the negotiations between Iceland and the United States, agreement 
was reached to the effect that privileges granted to the United States 
might, on certain conditions, be made applicable to the armed forces 
of the other parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. Since the status of 
the security forces in Iceland was provided for in the Annex to the 
Iceland-United States Agreement, the Icelandic Government were of 
the opinion that it would hardly be consistent if the Government were 
to sign another Agreement dealing with the same matter. If the 
Council Deputies felt for some reason that it was appropriate or 
necessary that Iceland should also sign the London draft Agreement 
on the Status of Forces, some convincing arguments would have to 
be submitted to the Icelandic Government. He was ready to bring 
such arguments to the notice of his Government if his colleagues 
supplied them. 

28. The French Deputy inquired whether, if the Icelandic Govern- 
ment signed the London Agreement, they would reserve the right, in 
the case of other Contracting Parties, to choose between the extension 



5 The text of this Agreement was distributed to the Working Group in MS-D 
(51) 31 (25 May 1951). 



211 

of the arrangements entered into with the United States Government 
and the application of the London Agreement. 

29. Mr. Evans stated that two parties to a multilateral agreement 
were free to conclude a bilateral agreement, on condition that the 
latter did not prejudice the interest of third parties. 

30. The Chairman said that in the course of the meeting a number 
of points had been raised by the Deputies which appeared to call for 
further discussion by the Working Group before the question came 
before the Deputies again. He therefore proposed that the Working 
Group should be requested to reconsider the comments made in the 
course of the present meeting. Any observations which the Canadian 
Deputy might receive from his Government would have to be reserved 
for later consideration, since the Canadian Government had not yet 
completed their examination of the Agreement. Subject to this reser- 
vation, however, the Working Group should confine itself to discuss- 
ing the comments made in the course of the present meeting, and no 
new points should be raised by the members of the Working Group. 
The Working Group might also examine the question of the provi- 
sional implementation of the Agreement and the various points re- 
garding the form which had not been raised at the previous session. 

31. The Council Deputies : 

(1) Agreed that the points raised by the Deputies should be 
referred to the Working Group for consideration, on the 
understanding that the Working Group was not authorized 

to deal with any new points, and that the Working Group 
should be requested to draw up a final text. 

(2) Agreed that the discussion should be resumed, with the 
object of giving the document a final reading, when the 
Working Group had prepared a new text. 



MS-R(51) 19 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
29 May 1951 

/. Consideration of the Draft Agreement on the Status of Forces. 1 

1. The Working Group reconsidered the draft Agreement regard- 
ing the Status of Forces, in the light of the observations made by 
the Deputies at their meeting of Thursday, 24 May 1951. 2 

i Reference : D-D ( 51 ) 127 (7 May 1951 ) . 
2D-R(51) 41, par. 1-31 (24 May 1951). 



212 



Article I, par. 1(a) 



2. The United States Deputy had requested that the word "in- 
dividuals" be added, with a view to excluding from this Article 
certain military personnel, such as military attaches or members 
of the United States Military Advisory Groups in Europe. The 
Working Group adopted this amendment. It was clearly under- 
stood that there was no objection to such individuals continuing 
to enjoy their present privileges. It was also made clear that the 
word "forces" was always used in the text of the Agreement in its 
collective sense and that such individuals were accordingly not 
regarded as constituting a force. 

Article VIII, par. 9 

3. The words "and their dependents" were added to the first 
clause of the paragraph. 

Article VIII, par. l(i) 

4. The phrase "provided that such damage was caused by such 
member or employee" was deleted as unnecessary. 

Article VIII, par. 2(b) 

5. It was agreed that two months would be the time allowed for 
the selection of an arbitrator. 

Article VIII, par. 5(b) 

6. The Italian Deputy had requested that the wording be so 
amended as not to lay an absolute obligation upon the receiving State 
to pay the amount of the damages. The Chairman pointed out that 
two different questions were at issue. The first was whether it could 
be left to the discretion of the receiving State to decide whether or 
not it would pay for its damage. The second was whether or not it 
should be given a time-limit within which to make such payment. 

7. With respect to the first point, the members of the Working 
Group agreed almost unanimously that to remove the obligation of 
the sending State to pay for the damage would be to destroy entirely 
the balance of paragraph 5 of Article VIII, which would thereby 
become meaningless. With respect to the second point, it was con- 
sidered that the present wording set no time-limit for the payment 
and that any addition would accordingly have the probable result of 
making the text less, rather than more, flexible. 



213 

8. The Working Group came to the conclusion that it would be 
advisable to retain the text in its present form. The Italian Repre- 
sentative said he would refer the matter back to his Government. 

Article VIII, par. 5(c) 

9. The French Representative proposed an amended wording for 
this Article which would not affect the substance, but would merely 
clarify the form. The Working Group accepted this amendment. It 
was understood that the word "settlement" covered all methods of 
settlement, including arbitration. It was also understood that the 
word "tribunal" was a general term covering any authority perform- 
ing a judicial function in this particular case. 

Article VIII, par. 5(f) 

10. The Luxembourg Deputy had requested that this Article be so 
amended as to be, first, restricted to quite exceptional cases, and 
secondly, extended to cover not only subparagraphs (b) and (c) of 
paragraph 5, but the whole of Article VIII. The intention was not 
to question the validity of the Agreement, but merely to provide for 
the possibility of some other procedure in cases where the settlement 
of any claim would cause a Contracting Party serious hardship. 

11. The United States Representative said that his Government 
had already had difficulty in agreeing to the exception provided in 
the present wording and that he doubted whether it would be possible 
to extend this exception. 

12. After some discussion by the Working Group, the Luxembourg 
Representative withdrew his amendment. 

Article VIII, par. 5(h) 

13. The United States Representative recalled that the first clause 
of this subparagraph was to have been deleted. He would be glad to 
know the reason why the wording in question had been finally 
retained. 

14. The Chairman explained that paragraph 2 of Article VIII 
applied to cases, among others, of damage arising out of the use of a 
ship or the loading or discharge of a cargo. Damage caused in such 
circumstances to goods which were the property of a Contracting 
Party was covered by this paragraph. Damage caused in the same 
circumstances to the property of third parties, other than the Con- 
tracting Parties, were not covered by paragraph 5. The provisions 
of paragraph 5 (e) , relating to the distribution among the Contract- 



214 

ing Parties of the amount of damages, applied to the claims covered 
by paragraph 2 as well as to the claims covered by paragraph 5. It 
was therefore necessary to provide that the cost of damages arising 
out of the use of ships or the loading [or] discharge of cargoes 
covered by paragraph 2, should be distributed in accordance with 
paragraph 5(b). 

Article VIII, par. 7 

15. The French Representative had pointed out that, in cases of the 
unauthorized use of vehicles, the responsibility of the sending State 
might be involved; for example, if a car park were inadequately 
guarded. It would therefore be advisable to amend the Article by 
providing that it was applicable, except in cases where the damage 
fell within the scope of paragraph 5. After some discussion, the 
Working Group recognized the correctness of this point of view, but 
adopted a different wording, which consisted in adding to paragraph 
7 the following phrase: "except in so far as the force is legally 
responsible." 

Article VIII 

16. The Chairman recalled the statement made by the Netherlands 
Deputy to the effect that the Netherlands Government might alter 
their national law if they considered it necessary to do so in order to 
make it possible to bring foreign Governments before a Netherlands 
court. He said that, from the point of view of the United Kingdom 
Government, the national law could only be altered insofar as it was 
not contrary to the general principles of international law. Conse- 
quently, if the Netherlands Government were to alter their national 
law, the United Kingdom Government would reserve the right to 
raise objections. The United States Eepresentative associated himself 
with this statement. 

Article IX, par. 7 

17. The Netherlands Representative recalled the statement made by 
the Netherlands Deputy on this subject. In wartime it might be 
physically impossible to replace the goods or services furnished to a 
force. These circumstances might have undesirable economic and 
financial consequences. It was no doubt true that the receiving State 
still possessed credits in foreign currencies, but there might be some 
uncertainty that such credit balances could be realized. While quite 
prepared in peacetime to regard the settlements provided in Article 
IX, paragraph 7, and Article VIII, parargaph 5(e) (iv), as final, the 
Netherlands Government felt that such settlements should only be 
considered as provisional in time of war and that it should be possible 
to make them the subject of bilateral agreements. He therefore pro- 



215 

posed that some form of appropriate wording should be found to take 

the following statement into account : 

"The other Contracting Parties wish to state that, on the 
termination of hostilities, any receiving State shall have the right 
to re-examine the financial consequences of the present Agree- 
ment by means of bilateral negotiations, particularly if it were 
proved that it had not been possible to make a satisfactory settle- 
ment of claims under the terms of Article VIII, paragraph 
5(e) (iv), and Article IX, paragraph 7, with respect to the real 
value of goods and services furnished by the receiving State." 

18. The Chairman pointed out that, in any case, Article XV, para- 
graph 2, made it possible for any State to denounce the Agreement in 
the event of hostilities. This meant that the receiving State would be 
free to enter into new negotiations, with a view to arriving at another 
method of settling the questions which were a matter of concern to 
the Netherlands Delegation, but all that could be expected of any 
Government at present was that they should undertake to consider 
the possibility of such negotiations. It was out of the question to ask 
them in advance to commit themselves to altering the method of 
settling claims. 

19. The Netherlands Representative said that his Government had 
no intention of denouncing the Agreement, but merely wished to pro- 
vide for the possibility of adopting a different method of settlement 
if necessary in wartime. 

20. The United States Representative suggested that the difficulty 
might perhaps be solved by adopting the present text and also a 
Netherlands statement to be inserted into the Summary Record. 

MS-R(51) 20 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
30 May 1951 

/. Consideration of Draft Agreement. 1 

1. The Italian Representative stated that his Government withdrew 
the proposed amendment to Article VIII, paragraph 5. 

Article VIII, par. 5(h) 

2. In reply to a question put by the United States Representative, 
the Chairman explained that it was clear that paragraph 4 applied to 

i Reference : D-D ( 51 ) 127 (7 May 1951 ) . 



216 

claims of Contracting Parties and paragraph 5 to claims of individ- 
uals. The last clause of paragraph 5(h), which read as follows: 
"other than claims for death or personal injury to which paragraph 4 
of this Article does not supply," was therefore not strictly necessary. 
It had seemed advisable however to retain this clause in order to 
avoid any possible ambiguity. 

Article VIII, par. 1 and 2 

3. The Canadian Eepresentative said that his Government con- 
sidered that the wording of paragraphs 1 and 2 was too involved and 
proposed a much shorter and simpler text. The majority of members 
of the Working Group considered that the proposed amendment 
would reopen the question of the whole Article, which had been estab- 
lished only after lengthy negotiations and represented a balance of 
views which had been worked out with great care. If the Canadian 
wording were adopted, it would have to be referred back to the 
Governments; this would take some considerable time, which could 
not be spared at the present stage of the negotiations. 

4. The Canadian Representative withdrew his proposal, but re- 
served the right to have the question raised again by the Canadian 
Deputy. 

Article X, par. 2 

5. The Canadian Representative requested clarification of the exact 
meaning of this Article. The Chairman referred to the explanations 
which had already been given to the Working Group and the 
Deputies and recorded in the Chairman's reports. The example which 
he had given at that time was not restrictive, in any case, and the 
taxation in question would be imposed even if the source of income 
were revealed after the person liable to tax had been sent to the coun- 
try from which he derived his income. 

Article IX, par. 7 

6. The Chairman read the draft of a passage to be inserted into the 
report in order to meet the wishes of the Netherlands Representative 
with respect to this Article. After adopting some amendments to this 
text, the Working Group agreed that it should be included in the 
report. 

7. The Netherlands Representative stated that he would like this 
text to be regarded to a certain extent as binding. To this end, he 
proposed that the report should recommend that the Deputies ap- 
prove this text. It was agreed that the presentation of this recom- 



217 

mendation would be left to the Chairman's discretion when he drew 
up the report. 

//. Application of the Agreement to Iceland. 

8. The Chairman recalled that Iceland had entered into a separate 
agreement with the United States 2 and that the point to be decided 
was whether it was necessary that Iceland should be a party to the 
multilateral Agreement. The Iceland-United States Agreement fol- 
lowed the general lines of the multilateral Agreement, but Iceland 
would nevertheless have some difficulty in adhering to two Agree- 
ments which differed in certain respects. 

9. The Representatives of the United States and France said that, 
although it was not necessary, from the legal point of view, that Ice- 
land should sign the multilateral Agreement, it would be advisable, 
from the political and psychological point of view, that she should 
sign it. The multilateral Agreement was the first outward sign of the 
solidarity of the NATO Powers, and it would certainly be unfor- 
tunate if one of the members did not sign this Agreement. 

10. The Chairman shared this point of view. He added that there 
would probably be practical difficulties in the way of basing the status 
of forces on two different Agreements, one applying to ten countries, 
and the other to one country only. On a number of points, moreover, 
the bilateral Agreement was not always complete, for example with 
respect to damage caused to third parties, which was dealt with in 
Article VIII of the multilateral Agreement. The Chairman said that 
there were no juridical reasons why two parties to a multilateral 
Agreement should not sign a bilateral Agreement, in so far as this 
did not prejudice the interests of third parties. 

11. The Icelandic Representative requested time to consider the 
question. It was understood that if he agreed with the view of the 
Working Group he would inform the Chairman to that effect. If he 
did not agree, a further meeting of the Working Group would have 
to be called. 

///. Resolution on Provisional Implementation of the Agreement. 

12. The Working Group considered the draft Resolution 3 on the 
provisional implementation of the Agreement before ratification and 
adopted it with some amendments. 



2MS-D(51) 31 (25 May 1951). 

3 Reference: MS-D(51) 30 (25 May 1951), which has been omitted inasmuch 
as it is substantially the same as the text of the Resolution finally approved 
by the Council Deputies, D-R(51) 48, par. 5-6 (19 June 1951). 



218 

IV. /Signature Formalities. 

13. It was agreed that the Agreement could be signed at a meeting 
of the Council Deputies. It would be necessary that the Deputies 
should be duly furnished with full powers. The Foreign Secretary 
would sign for the United Kingdom. 

14. The Belgian Representative pointed out that, in the case of 
Western Union, a protocol had been annexed to the Agreement to 
cover the special position of the Benelux countries. In view of the 
Benelux customs union, there was no reason to apply certain provi- 
sions of the Agreement in the relations among the three countries. 

15. The Chairman thought that it would be preferable to study the 
text of the protocol first and then to decide afterwards what action 
might be taken, in this connection, in the case of the NATO Agree- 
ment. At first sight, he doubted whether it was necessary to draw up 
a special protocol, since this was a question which concerned the 
BENELUX countries only. 

16. The Portuguese Representative recalled that his Government 
had made a general reservation on the Azores. It was suggested that 
this reservation should be added at the time of the signature of the 
Agreement. 

V. Other Business. 

17. The Chairman said that he had doubts regarding the accuracy 
of the statement made by the French Representative in paragraph 29 
of Summary Record MS-R(51) 12, and that he would be glad to 
know whether the wording of this statement, as it appeared in the 
Summary Record, was a faithful reflection of the meaning of the 
French Representative. It was agreed that the Chairman would 
establish direct contact with the French RejDresentative on this point. 

18. The United States Representative laid stress on the importance 
which his Government attached to the careful screening of military 
personnel sent from one country to another and particularly to the 
United States, who might have access to secret national documents. 
He requested the Representatives to note that his Government would 
in general require screening by it of members of a force or civilian 
component whose duties in the United States require access to highly 
classified United States material. 

19. The United States Representative further recalled that in time 
of war the United States Government considered that those provi- 
sions relating to jurisdiction over its forces, which were included in 
the Agreement, would no longer be adequate. In the event of hostili- 
ties, the United States Government desired to be able to exercise 



211) 

exclusive jurisdiction over their forces. He realized that under Arti- 
cle XV the United States Government had the right to denounce the 
Agreement in so far as the provisions in question were concerned. 
He thought it would be desirable, however, that the Deputies should 
express their opinion on this matter. 

20. It was agreed that the Chairman would undertake to draw up a 
new covering report to accompany the text as now established, with a 
view to submitting the text to the Deputies in the course of the fol- 
lowing week. 

D-R(51) 45 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 6 June 
1951 



77. Draft Agreement on the Status of the Armed Forces. 1 

2. At the request of the Chairman of the Council Deputies, 2 Mr. 
Evans, Chairman of the Working Group on the draft Agreement on 
the Status of the Armed Forces of NATO countries, described how 
the Working Group after prolonged discussions had arrived at a 
compromise which seemed to be acceptable to all parties. 3 

3. The Chairman thanked Mr. Evans and the Working Group for 
having brought this complex and difficult task to a successful 
conclusion. 

4. The Netherlands Deputy recalled the information he had given 4 
on the views of the Netherlands Government with regard to Article 
IX, par. 7. The Working Group had gone into the question and had 
prepared a statement on this subject which had been included in the 
covering report to the Deputies. 5 He requested the Deputies to con- 
firm this statement of the Working Group. He also recalled the state- 
ment which his representative had made in the Working Group on 
original paragraph 8 of Article VIII, and which he himself had 
repeated before the Deputies. 6 

5. The Canadian Deputy stated that the Canadian Government 
was willing to accept and sign the draft NATO Forces Agreement. 



i Previous reference: D-R(51)*41, par. 1-31 (24 May 1951). 

2 United States Deputy. 

3 The draft here under consideration is that contained in D-D (51) 138 (1 
June 1951 ) . 

4D-R(51) 41, par. 10 (24 May 1951). 
5 D-D (51) 146 (5 June 1951). 
6D-R(51) 41, par. 9 (24 May 1951). 



220 

However, this statement of intention was qualified in one respect. 
There were at present United States forces at certain leased bases in 
Newfoundland whose status was regulated by the Leased Bases 
Agreement of 1941, made between the United Kingdom and the 
United States before Newfoundland became a part of Canada. 7 Many 
of the problems dealt with in the draft NATO Forces Agreement 
were at present covered in the Leased Bases Agreement. The Cana- 
dian Government was initiating discussions with the United States 
Government with a view to determining how and to what extent the 
NATO Forces Agreement could apply to United States forces at the 
leased bases. Until these discussions had been concluded, it was not 
possible for the Canadian Government to say that no reservation 
would be attached to Canada's signature of the NATO Forces 
Agreement. 8 

6. The Belgian Deputy said that his Government was willing to 
accept the draft submitted to the Deputies. At the time of the signa- 
ture of the Agreement, his Government, together with the Govern- 
ments of Luxembourg and the Netherlands, would make a declaration 
regarding the extent to which the Agreement would apply in rela- 
tions among the three BENELUX Powers. This declaration would 
not be a reservation, but merely a unilateral statement which would 
in no way affect the validity of the assent of the Governments of the 
three Powers concerned. This declaration was reproduced as Annex 
B to D-D (51) 146. 9 

7. The Chairman also recalled a number of statements made by his 
representative in the Working Group. The first concerned the status 
of United States military attaches and certain members of Military 
Advisory Groups. It was understood that they would not be subject 
to the Agreement and would continue to enjoy diplomatic privileges. 
The second statement related to the intention of the United States 
Government to set up a Military Post Office system. The third state- 



7 For the Leased Bases Agreement of 1941, see 55 Stat. 1560, EAS 235 ; for 
later modifications : 1 UST 585, TIAS 2105 and 3 UST 2644, TIAS 2431. 

8 Canada made no reservation to the Status of Forces Agreement. The dis- 
cussions between Canada and the United States, referred to above, resulted in 
the Agreement Between the United States and Canada on the Application of the 
NATO Status of Forces Agreement to United States Forces at Leased Bases, 
entered into in April 1952 : 5 UST 2139, TIAS 3074, 235 UNTS 269. This Agree- 
ment entered into force on 27 September 1953, when the NATO Status of Forces 
Agreement became effective between Canada and the United States. 

9 Annex B of D-D (51) 146 (5 June 1951) has been omitted, since the text of 
the draft BENELUX Declaration therein is identical with that found in D-R 
(51) 48, par. 4 (19 June 1951). 



221 

ment was connected with a provision which had been originally in- 
cluded in Article VI and had been deleted from the present text; it 
dealt with the jurisdiction of the sending State over its forces in the 
event of hostilities. The United States Government would find it 
necessary to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over their forces in the 
event of hostilities, and understood that under the terms of Article 
XV review and revision of the Agreement are possible. He made it 
clear that the United States Government would invoke this provision 
and simultaneously give notice of the suspension of Article VII. He 
also reminded the Deputies of a statement made by his representative 
to the effect that his Government would probably find it necessary to 
adopt a security procedure to apply to personnel of a receiving State 
who might have to handle classified United States information. 

8. The United Kingdom Deputy said that he had taken note of the 
claim of the United States Government to obtain exclusive jurisdic- 
tion over their forces in the event of the outbreak of war. During the 
last war, the United Kingdom Parliament had conferred on the 
United States authorities special jurisdiction over members of their 
armed forces in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Govern- 
ment was not in a position, however, to give any pledge as to the 
action which Parliament would take in the event of another war. 
With respect to the establishment of a Military Post Office system, he 
pointed out that this was a matter which should be the subject of 
bilateral agreement between the countries concerned. 

9. The French Deputy said that he was willing to sign the Agree- 
ment. He also stressed the point that the agreement concerning the 
establishment of a Military Post Office system should be negotiated 
on a bilateral basis and should conform to the regulations of the 
Universal Postal Union. 

10. With respect to formalities, the Chairman said that the United 
Kingdom Government had offered to undertake the printing of the 
Agreement. The Deputies should notify the Secretariat when they 
had obtained their full powers. A possible date for the signature 
might be 19 June 1951. The Chairman would request the Information 
Service to prepare a press communique on the subject. 

11. The Council Deputies : 

(1) approved the draft Agreement on the Status of the Armed 
Forces. 

(2) confirmed the statement reproduced in the covering report, 

I regarding Article IX, paragraph 7. 




222 

MS-R(51) 21 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
7 June 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff. 1 

1. The Chairman said that his Government was now willing to 
accept the draft Agreement on the status of NATO civilian staff, sub- 
ject to a number of amendments on points of detail, and to a declara- 
tion which it would make at the appropriate time on the precautions 
which the United Kingdom Government intended to take regarding 
the application of Article 5 of the Agreement, in particular. He pro- 
posed that the Working Group should consider the text, article by- 
article. 

Preamble 

2. The word "officials" in the Preamble was replaced by the words 
"international staff." 

Article 1, par. (c) 

3. The French Representative thought it desirable to give a list of 
subsidiary bodies, to make it clear which of them were covered by the 
Agreement. It would also be advisable to define the status of the 
Standing Group, which had not yet been determined. It would there- 
fore be better to include the Standing Group in this list for the time 
being, to ensure that its status was made quite clear. This would 
neither prevent consideration of the question of status at a later date 
nor a decision, if it were thought fit, to give the Group a different 
status. 

4. The United States Representative said that the point should be 
settled in connection with Article 2, which excluded from the scope 
of the Agreement those military bodies which were the subject of a 
separate status Agreement. He would prefer a wording to the effect 
that the Agreement would not apply to the other military bodies. 

5. The Working Group agreed that the Summary Record of the 
present meeting would list the subsidiary bodies of the Treaty on the 
understanding that, if other bodies were set up at a later date, the list 
would have to be completed. The Secretariat was requested to pre- 
pare and circulate this list. 2 As for the problem of military bodies, 



iReference: MS-D(51) 29 (5 May 1951). 

2 The list of subsidiary bodies referred to was not included in the present 
Summary Record. It was, however, subsequently issued as MS-D(51) 33 
(8 June 1951) and, with some minor textual alterations, as an Annex to MS-R 
(51) 24 (14 June 1951). The text of MS-D(51) 33 has therefore been omitted. 



223 

it seemed necessary, from a general point of view, to provide that 
they would be subject to some form of status agreement. For the 
time being it was somewhat difficult to decide exactly which military 
bodies were concerned, and whether they included the Military 
Representative Committee and the Military Standardization Agency 
in particular. The text before them therefore had the advantage of 
flexibility, since it made it possible to exclude from the Agreement 
any body which would be the subject of a separate status agreement. 
This was a simple criterion, whereas it would be a much more compli- 
cated matter to try to discover a criterion which would make it pos- 
sible to decide whether or not the body in question was a military one. 

6. The Working Group finally agreed to amend Article 1(c) by 
replacing the last clause by the words "unless the Council decides 
otherwise" ; that is, it was agreed that it was for the Council to define 
the status of the military bodies as well as that of the various agen- 
cies which might be set up at a later date. 

7. It was made clear that, when a member of the military personnel 
subject to the agreement on the status of the armed forces was tem- 
porarily attached to [a] NATO national delegation or to the NAT 
Organization itself, he could, for the period of his posting, enjoy the 
privileges conferred by the Agreement on the status of civilian staff. 
He would thus be able to choose among those provisions which offered 
him the greatest advantages. This applied, of course, to temporary 
assignments only, and it was not for a moment suggested that a 
member of the military personnel permanently attached to a NATO 
agency could be subject to any status agreement other than that 
applying to NATO civilian staff. Civilians attached to military 
bodies would in the same way be subject, as civilian components, to 
the Agreement on the status of the armed forces. 

Article 3 

8. At the request of the United States Representative, a number of 
drafting amendments were made to Article 3 to clarify the meaning 
of the Article. 

Article 4 

9. The French Representative raised no objections to this Article, 
which reproduced the text of the corresponding Article in the OEEC 
Agreement. He pointed out, however, that the acquisition of im- 
movable property should be restricted to property which was strictly 
necessary for the operation of the Organization. Moreover, amend- 
ments were at present under consideration to similar articles in the 
Conventions governing other international organizations. Should 



224 

these amendments be adopted, it would be necessary to include them 
in the Agreement on the NATO status. 

10. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom Government also 
imposed restrictions on the acquisition of immovable property, for 
which a permit was required. 

Article 6 

11. The Portuguese Representative requested that this Article be 
amended with a view to conferring on the immovable property of the 
Organization exactly the same privileges as those granted to embas- 
sies and the national delegations. The Working Group considered 
that this amendment would have the effect of restricting, rather than 
increasing, the privileges of the Organization, and it was agreed that 
the present wording be retained, which was the same as that adopted 
for other international organizations. 

12. The French Representative said that it was important to define 
exactly what was meant by the premises of the Organization; the 
office accommodation of officials was not covered by this Article. It 
would also be advisable to provide in Part V for the inviolability of 
the premises of national delegations, which might very well not be 
physically located in the embassies. 

Article 8 

13. Mr. Bradford 3 pointed out that the transfers to which this 
Article referred were either transfers of the contributions made by 
member States, or transfers of the salaries of members of the Organi- 
zation to their country of origin. 

14. The United States Representative said that it would be ad- 
visable to clarify the meaning of this Article, which he considered too 
vague. He therefore proposed a wording to the effect that the Or- 
ganization might freely transfer and convert its property, whether in 
cash or at the bank, on condition that such transfers did not violate 
the currency regulations of the member States. If the Organization 
requested a transfer from one currency to another, the member State 
concerned should make the transfer at the most favorable official rate 
of exchange. 

15. The Working Group thought that the first part of the United 
States proposal would probably result in restricting, rather than in- 
creasing, the privileges of the Organization. It also thought it proper 
that the transfer should be made at the most favorable official rate of 
exchange. To take into account the view of the United States Repre- 



3 Member of the International Staff of NATO. 



225 

sentative, it was finally agreed that the words "at the most favourable 
rate of exchange" should be added at the end of paragraph 1(b). 

Article 9, par. (a) 

16. The Chairman pointed out that the stamp duty on cheques was 
not a direct tax. Nothing in this Article therefore authorized exemp- 
tion from stamp duty on cheques in favor of the Organization. 

Article 9, par. (b) 

17. Mr. Bradford asked whether it was the view of the United 
Kingdom Government that this Article could authorize the Organi- 
zation to set up a form of cooperative store similar to those which 
existed in other international organizations. The Chairman replied 
that he could not express any opinion on this point for the time being 
and said that he would refer the question to his authorities. 

Article 11 

18. The United States Representative asked that this Article be 
deleted, for reasons which had already been given to the Working 
Group. The Chairman supported this request. The Working Group 
agreed that Article 11 be deleted. 



MS-R(51) 22 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
8 June 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff. 1 

Article 5 

1. The Italian Representative suggested that the text should state 
that the scope of the privileges conferred on the Organization would 
not be wider than that of the privileges granted within one State to 
another State. 

2. The Working Group approved this view but agreed that the text 
of the Agreement should not be amended and that this statement 
should simply be included in the Summary Record. 



i Reference: MS-D(51) 29 (5 May 1951) 



226 

Article 13 

3. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom Government had 
been very reluctant to accept the wide range of privileges appearing 
in this Part. It was prepared, however, to give its agreement in prin- 
ciple, subject to certain minor changes. In view of the great difficul- 
ties which would be experienced in obtaining Parliamentary approval 
for the Agreement if new changes were made in the text, Mr. Evans 
urged that the wording of this Part should be retained as it stood. 
He particularly stressed the point that Article 13 was based on the 
corresponding Article of the Agreement entered into with the United 
States in the case of the United Nations Organization. 2 The Article 
should therefore prove satisfactory to the various delegations. 

4. He also desired to make the following four statements. The 
United Kingdom Government : 

(i) would always press for waiver of immunity in criminal 

cases ; 
(ii) would insist that the arrangement under which members of 

the diplomatic corps take out third-party motor insurance 

policies should be extended to NATO representatives and 

officials ; 
(iii) would only grant inviolability of his private house to the 

principal permanent representative of each country and not 

to his staff or to temporary representatives ; 
(iv) would wish to exercise an effective discretion as to the 

number of the staff of a representative who would enjoy the 

wider immunities. 

5. The United States Representative said that his Government 
would have preferred the provisions of the OEEC Convention. 3 In 
the absence of such provisions, he requested that the categories of 
representatives to whom the privileges applied be specified in the 
Summary Record. In his opinion, privileges should be accorded as 
follows : 

(a) The provisions of Article 13 would apply to the permanent 
staff of the national delegations to the Council Deputies and 
to the subsidiary bodies defined in Article 1(c), down to and 
including the grade of third secretary. 

(b) Article 14 would apply to the staff of all temporary national 



2 Agreement Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, signed at 
Lake Success, 26 June 1947. 61 Stat. 3416, TIAS 1676, 11 UNTS 11. 

3 Supplementary Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for European Economic 
Cooperation on the Legal Capacity, Privileges and Immunities of the Organiza- 
tion, signed in Paris on 16 April 1948. Treaty Series, No. 59 (1949), Cmd. 7796, 
43 Am. J. Int. L. Supp. 94, at 102 (1949). 



227 

delegations, down to and including the grade of third 
secretary. 

(c) Article 15 would apply to the staff of all national delegations 
other than those covered by Articles 13 and 14. 

(d) The privileges referred to in Article 19, relating to the inter- 
national staff, should apply to all members of the staff, down 
to, and including, clerical and custodial staff. 

6. The Chairman proposed that (d) should be dealt with when 
Article 19 was under discussion. He accepted (a), (b) and (c), sub- 
ject to the declaration just made by himself on behalf of his Gov- 
ernment and to the fact that Article 15 applied only to official secre- 
tarial staff. Apart from this, the Working Group agreed with the 
United States interpretation. It was also pointed out that, as the 
grade of third secretary was unknown in certain countries, and, more- 
over, as it was not always possible to establish exact comparisons 
between the grades in internal Government services and the grades 
of the Diplomatic Service, the privileges in question should be re- 
garded as applying down to the grade of third secretary or its 
equivalent. 

7. The French Representative expressed his appreciation of the 
way in which the United Kingdom Delegation had drawn closer to 
the point of view of the other delegations. As far as he was con- 
cerned, he agreed with the interpretation of the grades to which the 
privileges applied. He also approved the grades mentioned in the 
Chairman's statements. He wished to point out, however, that the 
wording of Article 13 was unsatisfactory in its present form. It 
conferred an undefined status on an undefined number of individuals. 
It did not take into account the fact that NATO agencies were lo- 
cated in different countries and that the national delegations were 
accordingly also located in several countries. The term "principal 
permanent representative" was too vague. It gave the impression 
that there were as many principal permanent representatives as there 
were countries in which the Organization was represented. Lastly, 
there was some ambiguity about the juridical definition of the status. 
The text gave the impression that the parties concerned were two 
States, a member State on one hand and the host Government on the 
other; whereas in fact it was a case of delegations attached to an 
Organization and not to a member State. In these circumstances, the 
Organization, and not the host Government, was alone able to decide 
what provisions to lay down for national delegations. In this con- 
nection, the French Representative submitted the following redraft 
of Article 13 [and Article 14], which reflected the comments which 
he had been instructed to make : 



228 

"Article 13 

"Each member State shall maintain a permanent delegation 
to the Organization which shall constitute a diplomatic mission, 
the Head of which shall be the Deputy designated by the Gov- 
ernment of that State. 

"This delegation shall include only those members of the civ- 
ilian and military staff who are permanently designated as repre- 
sentatives of the Government concerned to the Council or the 
permanent subsidiary bodies. Its members shall enjoy the immu- 
nities and privileges normally accorded to diplomatic repre- 
sentatives of comparable rank. 

"Member States shall restrict the numbers of this delegation 
to the absolute minimum, within the limits of a general frame- 
work determined by the Council Deputies. 

"Article 14 

"Any representative of a Member State to the Council or any 
of its subsidiary bodies, who is not a member of the delegation 
referred to in Article 13, shall, while present in the territory of 
another Member State for the discharge of his duties, enjoy the 
following privileges and immunities: . . ." 

8. The Chairman pointed out that completely new principles were 
now being put forward, quite different from those adopted for UNO 
and the OEEC and those which had served as a basis in preparing 
the NATO draft Agreement. The French text no longer contem- 
plated granting privileges to a certain number of individuals, but 
proposed to give them to each national delegation as an entity sim- 
ilar to a diplomatic mission, accredited in this case to an interna- 
tional organization. In view of the fact that NATO agencies were 
established in several countries, it was difficult to see how the Head 
of the Mission in London could be responsible for that part of his 
delegation which was posted to another country. The United King- 
dom Government felt that it had made the greatest number of con- 
cessions on this point, and he did not think he could submit a wording 
to his Government which would certainly be found unacceptable. 

9. The F.rench Representative pointed out that it was not his 
intention to introduce a new conception of international law, but 
merely to specify to whom exactly the system of privileges should 
apply. In any case, national delegations were not accredited to the 
host Government, but were delegations to the international Organiza- 
tion, and this was true both for UNO and for NATO. There were 
thus two kinds of juridical relationship : the first, between the mem- 



229 

ber State and the Organization; the second, between the Organiza- 
tion and the host Government. The present wording telescoped the 
two into one, and the main object of the French proposal was to 
reflect the true position. He also pointed out that, in the case of 
UNO, the Convention on privileges was concluded with the Secretary 
General and the host Government, and not exclusively with the host 
Government. 

10. The Chairman explained that it was not the intention of the 
United Kingdom Government to impose arbitrary restrictions on the 
numbers of the staff of national delegations, but merely to retain 
the right of control over the number of those members of national 
delegations who would enjoy diplomatic privileges. He suggested 
that the present discussion was somewhat academic and that it might 
therefore be enough to include the comments of the French Repre- 
sentative in the Summary Record. 

11. The French Representative said that of course he entirely 
agreed that it was desirable to deal with as many points as possible 
by reference to the Summary Record. Many of the questions he had 
raised could certainly be settled in this way, but the real difficulty 
was a juridical one : that of the relationship between the member 
States, the Organization, and the host Government; and this diffi- 
culty could only be solved in the Agreement itself. 

12. While appreciating that the United Kingdom should feel con- 
cerned about certain points, the Italian Representative said he agreed 
with the French Representative. 

13. The Canadian Representative remarked that, while he under- 
stood the French point of view, he feared that the proposal of the 
French Government would encounter difficulties in practice. There 
were branches of the Organization in at least three countries, and 
the Head of a Mission would certainly have difficulty in exercising 
full control under these conditions. In this connection, the Working 
Group made it clear that there might be a principal permanent repre- 
sentative in each country in which there was an agency of the Orga- 
nization. These principal representatives, however, only enjoyed 
those privileges which were accorded to diplomatic representatives 
of comparable rank. Their principal representative to the Council 
Deputies enjoyed the special privileges which were accorded to the 
Head of a diplomatic mission. 

14. The Italian Representative submitted a compromise proposal, 
worded as follows : 

"Article 13 

"Every person designated by a Member State as its principal 
permanent representative to the Organization in the territory of 



230 

another Member State, and the resident members of his official 
civilian or military staff, shall enjoy the immunities and privi- 
leges normally accorded to diplomatic representatives and their 
official staff, insofar as such staff have the same rank as the 
official staff of the Diplomatic Mission of the same State to the 
receiving State, and insofar as the numbers of such staff do not 
exceed the number laid down by the Council Deputies in agree- 
ment with the State in which the Organization has its Head- 
quarters. Any increase in the numbers of such staff may be the 
subject of an Agreement between the latter State and the State 
employing the staff in question." 

15. The Belgian Representative also submitted a compromise pro- 
posal. 

16. The Chairman suggested that the main objection of the French 
Representative might be overcome by inserting into the text of 
Article 13 the words, "and the Organization," after the words, "be- 
tween these States." 

17. The French Representative said that, in any event, his instruc- 
tions did not authorize him to accept Article 13 for the time being. 
He must therefore formally request that this Article be reserved for 
consideration at a later stage. He would discuss the question with his 
Government in the light of the outcome of the present meeting, and 
the question might be taken up again at the second reading of the 
draft Agreement. 

Article 14, par. 1(h) 

18. The words "to their future country of residence" were deleted 
from paragraph 1(h). It was agreed that it was not for the host 
Government to exercise control over the destination of exported fur- 
niture and effects. It was also agreed that the last clause which 
read "subject in either case to such conditions as the Government of 
the country in which the right is being exercised may deem neces- 
sary," meant that the Government's particular intention was to en- 
sure that goods should not be sold and that there should not be 
importation in abnormally large quantities. 

Article 14, par. l(i) 

19. The wording was amended to take into account the fact that 
the provisions of this passage had already been partially covered by 
Article 14, par. 1(g). 

20. Throughout the Article, the words "diplomatic representa- 
tives" were replaced by "diplomatic staff." 



231 



Article 14, par. 2 



21. The Belgian Representative requested that this Article be re- 
placed by the following wording, which was based on the corre- 
sponding passage of the Agreement on the Status of the Armed 
Forces : 

"Where the incidence of any form of taxation depends upon 
residence or domicile, periods during which the representative 
of a Member State is in the territory of another Member State 
by reason solely of his being a representative shall not be con- 
sidered as periods of residence therein, or as creating a change of 
residence or domicile, for the purposes of such taxation. The 
representative shall be exempt from taxation in the other Mem- 
ber State on the salary and emoluments paid to him as a repre- 
sentative by the State of which he is a national or on any 
tangible movable property the presence of which in the afore- 
mentioned State is due solely to his temporary presence there." 

A similar paragraph should appear in Article 19, which dealt 
with officials of the Organization. 

22. The Belgian Representative considered it unjustifiable from 
the fiscal point of view to establish different texts for the members 
of the armed forces and the representatives of the armed forces and 
the representatives of the various member States to the Organization. 

23. After discussion, the Working Group came to the conclusion 
that, if this amendment were adopted, it would be necessary to insert 
the complete text of Article X of the Agreement on the Status of 
the Armed Forces in the present Agreement. An alteration of this 
kind would be undesirable at the present stage of the negotiations. 
The Working Group therefore agreed to retain the present wording. 

24. The Chairman explained that, where tangible movable prop- 
erty was concerned, this Article was intended to ensure that, if such 
property was located in the territory of the host Government solely 
because the representative had been sent to the territory of that Gov- 
ernment for the discharge of his duties, his property would be cov- 
ered by the same forms of immunity from taxation as those accorded 
to diplomatic staff of comparable rank. 

Article 15 

25. In reply to a question by the Norwegian Representative, the 
Chairman explained that the privileges and immunities of typists 
would be set out in Article 15. As regards the domestic staff of 
representatives, they would not be entitled to any privileges properly 
so-called but would, he expected, enjoy the courtesies which are 



232 

accorded to comparable members of the staff of a diplomatic repre- 
sentative. 



MS-R(51) 23 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
8 June 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff. 1 

1. The Working Group continued their discussion of the draft 
Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representatives and 
International Staff. 

Part IV 

2. It was agreed to reword the heading to read: "International 
Staff." 

Article 18 

3. The United States Representative asked whether it was under- 
stood that the officials referred to in Article 18 and granted certain 
immunities and exemptions in Article 19 included all members of 
the Secretariat from the Executive Secretary down to drivers, mes- 
sengers, etc. The United States view was that the two Articles should 
cover all grades of staff. 

4. The Chairman replied that the United Kingdom Government 
was ready to follow the practice of other international organizations 
in this connection, and asked the Secretariat to find out what was 
common practice. Presumably certain staff paid by the hour — office 
cleaners, for example — would in any case not be included. 

5. There seemed a general consensus of opinion in the Group that 
the practice in other international organizations, particularly the 
United Nations and OEEC, should be followed. 

6. In reply to a point raised by the Belgian Representative to the 
effect that "fonctionnaires" in French did not correspond exactly to 
"officials" in English, the Chairman suggested that the French- 
speaking members of the Group should form an unofficial drafting 
committee to verify the accuracy of the French text. 



i Reference: MS-D(51) 29 (5 May 1951) 



233 



Article 19(b) 



7. The United States Representative said that his Government 
could not accept either alternative suggested in Article 19(b), and 
he therefore proposed the following wording: 

be exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to 
them in their capacity as such officials, except that each Member 
State shall treat, for tax purposes, the salaries and emoluments of 
such officials who are its nationals in accordance with such Mem- 
ber State's own international laws. 
His Government felt strongly on this point. 

8. The Chairman pointed out that the whole problem of exemption 
from direct taxation in the United Kingdom was complicated by the 
fact that, when discretion was left in an international Agreement to 
tax or not to tax salaries, his Government was obliged to tax in 
virtue of an undertaking given by it when the relevant Act was 
passed. Only when an Agreement specifically laid down that salaries 
were to be free of tax, could exemption be given by the United 
Kingdom to its nationals. 

9. Mr. Bradford, 2 in reply to a question by the Representative of 
Norway, said that he thought salaries would represent approximately 
two-thirds of the budget and that it could be assumed that taxation 
would, roughly speaking, take at least 25% of salaries or even more. 

10. The Belgian Representative pointed out that Article 19(b) pro- 
vided the following alternatives : 

(i) exemption from taxation on salaries and emoluments, but 
with discretion left to each member State to tax its na- 
tionals — unless a system was adopted whereby salaries and 
emoluments were taxed by the Organization itself. 

(ii) the granting of exemptions similar to those enjoyed by 
officials of the other principal international organizations. 

11. With regard to the second alternative, the Belgian Government 
could only reaffirm its opposition in principle to any extension to 
new categories of officials of the immunities accorded to the officials 
of other international organizations such as UNO, OEEC, etc. It 
was no doubt desirable to exempt the officials of similar organizations 
from taxes in that country in which for a variety of reasons the 
headquarters of the above organizations had been set up, but this 
should not mean that such officials should escape paying any taxes 
in respect of the remuneration paid to them by an international orga- 
nization. For this reason the Belgian Government objected to the 
inclusion of the last of the alternative provisions of Article 19(b), 



2 Member of the International Staff of NATO. 



234 

which in any case reproduced the provisions of Article 14 of Supple- 
mentary Protocol No. 1 of the OEEC Convention. 

12. With respect to the first alternative, the Belgian Government, 
in accordance with the resolutions of the meeting held in Paris by 
the fiscal experts of the Brussels Treaty countries, could agree to 
taxation by the Organization itself for its own benefit, on condition 
that genuine deductions were made as under any system of taxation. 
In this case, the Agreement should respect the right of each member 
State to levy its own taxes on salaries and emoluments paid by the 
Organization, in accordance with its own fiscal legislation, provided 
the hardship of double taxation were overcome by granting a credit 
or rebate. 

13. If, however, the Working Group adopted the principle of ex- 
emption, it would be desirable to include in the Article dealing with 
exemption a provision to the effect that each State was free to tax 
the officials who were its nationals for fiscal purposes, at the time 
of their appointments to the staff of the Organization. In this con- 
nection, it should be noted that the English translation "nationals" 
of the French term "nationaux" did not adequately cover the various 
criteria of liability for taxation adopted by the legislative systems of 
the countries concerned. In Belgium, for example, liability to pay 
income tax depended on whether the person concerned was an in- 
habitant of the Kingdom, owned a residence there and drew an in- 
come from sources therein, whatever his nationality might be. 

14. The Italian Representative said that the view of the Italian 
Government was similar to that just expressed by the Belgian Repre- 
sentative. 

15. A discussion followed as to which of the two alternatives in 
Article 19(b) was preferred by the members of the Group, and the 
following positions were taken : 

(a) The Belgian and Italian Representatives said that they could 
accept alternative (1), but not alternative (2). 

(b) The Danish, French and Norwegian Representatives said 
that they preferred alternative (1), but thought that their 
Governments could accept alternative (2). 

(c) The Canadian Representative said that he preferred alterna- 
tive (2), but could accept alternative (1). 

(d) The United States Representative said that his Government 
felt strongly that it must maintain its right to tax all its 
nationals, and could therefore accept neither alternative. He 
was sure his Government could not accept alternative (2), 
but he might have a better chance of persuading it to accept 
alternative (1), if the last clause "unless the Member States 



235 

agree on a system whereby the salaries and emoluments con- 
cerned are taxed by the Organisation itself" were deleted. 

16. Mr. Bradford suggested that the words "by the Organisation" 
should be added after the words "paid to them" in alternative (1). 
It was agreed that these words should be included. 

17. The Danish and Canadian Representatives said that, from the 
point of view of the smooth working of an international staff, it was 
desirable that all officials of the same grade should receive the same 
net salary, which would not be possible if Governments taxed their 
nationals on the staff at varying rates. 

18. Summing up the discussion, the Chairman pointed out that 
there was a majority in favor of alternative (1) and that, while the 
Canadian Representative preferred alternative (2), the only member 
of the Group who could not accept alternative (1) was the United 
States Representative. He suggested that alternative (1) be retained, 
including the "unless" clause which should for the time being be put 
in square brackets; that alternative (2) be deleted; and that the 
article be reconsidered at the next meeting. 

19. The Belgian Representative then suggested that the inclusion 
of an article in this part of the Agreement on the lines of Article 17, 
which left discretion to each State in the matter of immunities to be 
granted to its nationals, might make it possible to dispense with the 
proviso in Article 19(b), since the new article would give an option 
to governments in the matter of tax exemptions for its nationals. 

20. In conformity with this suggestion, the Group agreed to re- 
word Article 19(b) as follows: "be exempt from taxation on the 
salaries and emoluments paid to them by the Organisation in their 
capacity as such officials." 

21. The Secretariat was asked to look into the implication of this 
amendment and to report to the Group on its possible effects on the 
salaries of the international staff. 

Article 19(c) 

22. Article 19(c) was deleted. 

Article 19(e) 

23. Article 19(e) was re- worded to read as follows: "be accorded 
the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as 
are accorded to diplomatic personnel of comparable rank." 

Article 19(f) 

24. A similar drafting modification was made to this provision. 



236 

Article 19(g) 

25. The words a to their future country of residence." were deleted. 

26. The Belgian Representative asked whether it was not desirable 
to add a subparagraph on the lines of Article 14 (paragraph 2), 
which dealt with the incidence of taxation in relation to residence. 

27. The Chairman replied that no such clause was included in 
other international Agreements of a similar kind, and that he did 
not think the Group could consider adding it. 

Article 20 

28. After discussion as to whether the Chairman of the FEB 
should be specifically included among the persons referred to in this 
Article, the Group agreed, on the proposal of the Chairman, to defer 
its decision until the exact status of that official was known. 

29. The Belgian Representative said that the purpose of Article 20 
was to accord immunities similar to diplomatic immunities to the 
Chief of the International Staff of the Organization, the Coordinator 
of North Atlantic Defense Production, and a number of other high- 
ranking officials. It would be advisable to specify in the draft Agree- 
ment on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff that, in matters concern- 
ing imports and exports of goods and purchases on the domestic 
market, the provisions of Article 20 could not be interpreted as laying 
any obligation on a member State to accord the aforementioned im- 
munities to persons who were its own nationals or nationals of a 
State which was one of its partners in a Customs or Economic Union. 

30. The Italian Representative said his Government had similar 
views. 

31. To meet this point, it was agreed to add the words, "in accord- 
ance with international law," at the end of the Article. 

32. The Danish Representative pointed out that the immunities 
granted to the spouse and children of the officials in question had 
not been granted to Deputies. 

33. It was agreed to delete the words, "in respect of himself, his 
spouse and children under the age of 21 years," in Article 20. 

34. Certain modifications of a purely drafting nature were also 
made to the text of Article 20. 

35. The Chairman said that he wished to make it perfectly clear 
that the United Kingdom Government considered that Article 20 
could not be construed as giving any form of income tax exemption, 
except in respect of the salary and emoluments received by the 
official in question in his capacity as an official of the Organization. 



237 



Article 22 



36. The United States Representative pointed out that the Orga- 
nization might find it desirable to apply the provisions of Articles 18 
and 19 to some experts, but that in general the provisions of Article 
22 would apply to experts employed on a temporary basis. The 
Chairman agreed with this view. 

37. The Italian Representative said that his Government wanted 
to see an obligation in the Agreement to communicate to the Govern- 
ment concerned the names of the experts on mission. Difficulties had 
been encountered by the Italian Government in the past with experts 
on mission from other international organizations when their names 
and duties had been unknown to it. 

38. The Chairman suggested, and the Group agreed, that a sen- 
tence on the lines of the last sentence of Article 18 should be included 
at the end of Article 22 to meet this point. 

Article 25 

39. The last sentence of this Article was deleted. 

Signatory Clause 

40. The words "being duly authorised to that effect" were deleted. 

41. The Working Group agreed on the proposal of the Chairman 
to leave it to the latter to prepare a single Article on the lines of 
Article 17, to apply to Parts IV, V and VI. 



MS-R(51) 24 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
14 June 1951 

/. Discussion of Draft Agreement on NATO Civilian Personnel. 1 

Articles 1(c), 2 

1. The United States Representative said that his Government 
considered that the Agreement should make it clear that military 
bodies, especially the Standing Group, were excluded from its pro- 
visions, unless the Council decided otherwise, since such bodies were 

i Reference (for par. 1-16 of Summary Record: MS-D(51) 29 (R) (11 June 
1951). For remaining paragraphs, see note 3, infra. 



238 

subject to the Forces Agreement. He suggested a modification to 
Article 1 (c) and Article 2 for this purpose. 

2. Colonel de Villeple (Western European Regional Planning 
Group), in answer to a question by the Chairman, said that he had 
no instructions on this point. His personal view was that it might 
be desirable to examine the case of each military body separately: 
some of them were essentially planning bodies, while others, the 
Standing Group for example, gave orders in the strategic sphere and 
therefore could be more properly regarded as military bodies. 

3. After a brief discussion, the Chairman suggested that the United 
States proposal be accepted. Article 1(c) was therefore amended to 
read : " 'subsidiary bodies' means any organ, committee or service 
established by the Council or under its authority except those to 
which, in accordance with Article 2, this Agreement does not apply" ; 
and Article 2 was amended to read : "the present Agreement shall not 
apply to any military headquarters established in pursuance of the 
North Atlantic Treaty nor, unless the Council decides otherwise, to 
any other military body." 

4. It was agreed that the list of subsidiary NATO bodies, 2 circu- 
lated at the beginning of the meeting, should appear in Annex to the 
Summary Record with certain amendments on points of detail sug- 
gested by Colonel de Villeple and the Chairman. 

Article 1(d) 

5. On the proposal of the Chairman, an additional subparagraph, 
1(d), was added to Article 1 to provide for the possible absence of 
the Chairman of the Council Deputies. The provision was worded 
as follows : " 'Chairman of the Council Deputies' includes, in his 
absence, the Vice Chairman acting for him." 

Article 5 

6. A drafting modification proposed by the Chairman was accepted. 

Article 8, par. 1(b) 

7. On the Chairman's proposal, it was agreed to add at the end 
of this subparagraph the words "for a sale or purchase as the case 
may be." 

8. The United States Representative asked that it should be made 
clear in the Record that the only form of exchange which a country 



2MS-D(51) 33 (8 June 1951), which has been omitted since it is identical, 
except for minor textual changes, with the Annex to the present Summary 
Record. 



239 

could be called on to make under this Article was between its own 
currency and any other NATO currency : the United States, for ex- 
ample, might be called on to convert dollars into any other NATO 
currency and vice versa, but not to convert pounds sterling, for ex- 
ample, into francs. The Group agreed with this interpretation. 

9. The Group also wanted it to be made clear that it was its under- 
standing that this Article was intended only to cover normal admin- 
istrative expenses, and that nothing other than that was contemplated. 

New Article 11 

10. The Italian Representative pointed out that the original Arti- 
cle 11 of the draft Agreement, which dealt with telecommunications, 
had been deleted. It was identical with the corresponding Article in 
the OEEC Convention, and he thought it undesirable to exclude it 
since there would be no certainty in that case as to the system under 
which NATO communications would operate. 

11. The Chairman pointed out that the Article had been deleted 
because several Governments had objected to its inclusion. The 
United States Representative had proposed deletion because of diffi- 
culties which it might cause in respect of private telecommunications 
companies in the United States. The United Kingdom had supported 
deletion because the United Kingdom postal authorities considered 
that, as drafted, the Article might cause difficulties vis-a-vis the In- 
ternational Telecommunications Convention; while the Canadian 
Representative, at first in favor of the Article, had supported the 
proposal to exclude it in the light of the arguments put forward at 
the last meeting. He added that difficulties had in fact arisen over 
the OEEC Article, and the whole question of telecommunications 
was being re-examined both by the OEEC and UNO. 

12. The Italian Representative said that he could not see why 
there should be any difficulty, and that NATO should be in the same 
position as OEEC in this connection. He foresaw serious dangers if 
there were no Article referring to this question in the Agreement. 

13. The French Representative said that he had provisionally 
agreed on deletion at an earlier meeting, but, after consulting with 
his authorities, he agreed with the question which they had put to 
him: If the Article was deleted, under what system would NATO 
communications be operated? If there were no agreed system, the 
difficulties might be more serious than those which might or might 
not arise under the original Article 11. 

14. The Chairman replied that his postal authorities had stated 
that in their opinion no practical inconvenience would be caused if 
the original Article 1 1 was deleted. 



240 

15. After further discussion, the Chairman proposed the retention 
of the original Article, subject to a minor drafting amendment and 
the addition of an additional sentence at the end which might meet 
the objection raised by certain postal authorities, including his own, 
to the original Article. The sentence was worded as follows : "Mem- 
ber States shall ensure that communications to which special treat- 
ment is accorded under this Article are not routed through the terri- 
tories of any State which is not a Party to the present Agreement." 
He also proposed the addition of a second paragraph to the Article 
to meet the special position of those countries in which communica- 
tions were operated by private companies. The paragraph was 
worded as follows: "This Article shall not bind any Member State 
in respect of any facilities which are not operated by the Govern- 
ment." 

16. It was agreed to include the Article provisionally, as amended, 
in the Agreement, but several Representatives stated that they would 
have to consult their postal authorities before they could approve it 
finally. 

Article 13 3 

17. The French Representative submitted a re-draft of this Article. 

18. The United States Representative said that, whatever text for 
this Article was adopted, the United States interpretation was that 
the immunities and privileges referred to in it should extend to the 
grade of third secretary. 

19. The Chairman said that he wanted it to be clearly understood 
that the main preoccupation of the United Kingdom Government was 
to retain effective control of the number of personnel to whom the 
Article applied. 

20. The French Representative said that he accepted the United 
States interpretation with regard to third secretaries, but would like 
to see it stated in the Record that, for countries where that grade 
was unknown, third secretary was understood to cover attaches or 
persons of rank similar to third secretary. This interpretation was 
approved by the Group. 

21. In reply to a question by the United States Representative, the 
Chairman said that in the United Kingdom diplomatic staff received 
exemption from taxation on the following four kinds of income: 

(1) their official salary and emoluments; 



3 The remaining Articles referred to in this Summary Record (par. 17-49) 
bear the numbers of MS-D(51) 29 (2R) (15 June 1951), altered to take into 
account the inclusion of a new Article 11. [Note in original text]. The text 
under consideration, however, is that contained in the corresponding numbers 
of MS-D(51) 29 (R) (11 June 1951). 



241 

(2) income derived from sources abroad; 

(3) property owned or occupied as their official residence (i.e., 
their main private residence, but not other houses they might 
have purchased) ; 

(4) in the case of heads of missions, income derived from United 
Kingdom Government Bonds. 

The Head of a NATO delegation would receive all four forms of 
exemption, while the other members covered by Article 13 would 
receive the first three. 

22. The Group decided to include in the Record the four reserva- 
tions made by the Chairman in the name of the United Kingdom 
Government when this Article had been discussed earlier, to make it 
clear that they applied to the new Article. These reservations were 
to the effect that the United Kingdom Government : 

(i) would always press for waiver of immunity in criminal 

cases ; 
(ii) would insist that the arrangement under which members 
of the Diplomatic Corps take out third party motor insur- 
ance policies should be extended to NATO representatives 
and officials ; 
(iii) would only grant inviolability of his private house to the 
principal permanent representative of each country, and 
not to his staff or to temporary representatives; 
(iv) would wish to exercise an effective discretion as to the num- 
ber of the staff of a representative who would enjoy the 
wider immunities. 
The French and Italian Representatives made reservations similar 
to those of the United Kingdom, and there was general agreement in 
the Group that other countries could, if they so desired, adopt meas- 
ures to give effect to them in their own territories. 

23. There was unanimity in the Group on the following two points : 

(1) All Governments agreed on the necessity to keep delegations 
to the strict numerical minimum essential for effective oper- 
ation, for obvious budgetary reasons. 

(2) Council Deputies would, as a matter of courtesy, be assim- 
ilated to Heads of Diplomatic missions where privileges 
were concerned. 

24. The new Article 13 was approved, subject to a number of draft- 
ing modifications proposed by the Chairman. 

I Article 14, par. 1(h) and (i) 

25. The United States Representative objected to the proviso in 
these two subparagraphs : "subject to such conditions as the Govern- 



242 

ment of the country in which the right is being exercised may deem 
necessary." The words gave the impression that it was possible that 
what was being given with one hand might be taken away by the 
other. 

26. The Chairman replied that the proviso was primarily intended 
to guard against abuse and that the United Kingdom Government 
wanted to be able to exercise some measure of control. 

27. The United States Representative withdrew his objection, pro- 
vided it was placed on record that the purpose of the proviso was: 

(1) to guard against abuse; 

(2) to ensure that there should be no sale without payment of 
the appropriate taxes ; 

(3) to ensure that articles brought into a country were not in 
excess of what could reasonably be used. 

Article 14, par. 3 

28. The Italian Representative asked whether the representatives 
defined in paragraph 3 were to be regarded as permanent or tempo- 
rary. 

29. The Chairman replied, and the Group agreed, that Article 14 
applied essentially to temporary personnel. 

30. The Italian Representative asked that in these circumstances 
there should be an obligation to communicate to the Government con- 
cerned the names and the probable length of stay of such representa- 
tives, since the Italian Government had experienced difficulty in the 
past when the names of experts and members of missions had been 
unknown to it. 

31. The United States Representatives thought that this was hardly 
necessary and somewhat impracticable in what was essentially a 
friendly Organization, and one in which a very large number of 
experts, advisers, etc., were sent on mission. 

32. After a brief discussion, the Group agreed to add a sentence 
to paragraph 3 to meet the Italian view, worded as follows: "Each 
Member State shall communicate to the other Member States con- 
cerned, if they so request, the names of its representatives to whom 
this Article applies and the probable duration of their stay in the 
territories of such other Member States." 

33. The United States Representative asked that the Summary 
Record should state that a number of Representatives, including those 
of the United Kingdom and France, indicated that their Governments 
did not at present intend to avail themselves of this right. 

34. Article 14, as amended, and subject to drafting modifications 
to the English text, was approved by the Working Group. 



243 



Article 18 



35. The United States Representative said that his Government 
had been somewhat puzzled by the reference on some occasions to 
"international staff" and on others to "officials." First, would it not 
be desirable to use the same wording throughout the Agreement ; and 
secondly, would "officials" cover all grades of staff his Government 
considered that it should ? 

36. In reply to the first point, the Chairman stated that there were 
certain advantages in using "international staff" as a heading and 
"officials" in the body of the Articles, in particular because the use 
of "officials" in the heading might give rise to confusion and be inter- 
preted as including representatives of delegations as well as the mem- 
bers of the international staff; while the words "international staff" 
in the body of the Articles would be very heavy from the point of 
view of drafting. In reply to the second point, he said that the Group 
had already agreed to follow the practice adopted by UNO and the 
OEEC, and was waiting for information on this point from the 
Secretariat. 

Article 19 

37. The United States Representative noted that the provision re- 
lating to social insurance contributions had been deleted. Was it 
intended that social insurance contributions should be levied on 
NATO nationals other than those of the host State ? If so, the provi- 
sion should not have been deleted. 

39. 4 The Chairman replied that the United Kingdom Government 
attached great importance to the principle of universality in social 
security contributions in the United Kingdom. No exceptions were 
made even in the case of diplomatic personnel, though, in practice, 
no action might be taken if such personnel in fact did not pay the 
contributions asked of them. No exception, however, could be writ- 
ten into an Agreement. 

40. The French Representative, in reply to a question by the 
United States Representative, said that the French Government did 
not intend to ask for social security contributions from NATO na- 
tionals employed by the FEB. 

Article 20 

41. The Italian Representative, in reply to a question by the 
United States Representative as to the purpose of the words, "in 
accordance with international law," at the end of the Article, said 

•* No paragraph 38 in original text. 



244 

that the Article dealt with an immunity from jurisdiction and the 
words were intended to make it clear that the immunity was given 
to officials only in respect of acts done in the discharge of their duty, 
and not in respect of acts done as private individuals. 

42. On the question as to whether or not the Chairman of the FEB 
should be specifically referred to in Article 20, the Chairman, in reply 
to the French Representative, pointed out that the FEB Chairman's 
position was similar to that of the Chairman of the Council Deputies, 
and that the latter was covered by Article 13 and not Article 20. 

43. The French Representative said that, in the light of the Chair- 
man's observation, he would refer the question back to his Govern- 
ment and raise it again at a later meeting. 

Article 23 

44. The Belgian Representative pointed out that Article 23 re- 
served the right of taxation in respect of the remuneration of officials 
of the Organization to the country of which the latter were nationals. 
He wished to point out that in a large number of countries, apart 
from the United States, liability to taxation on income was related, 
not to the concept of nationality, but to that of fiscal domicile, and 
that from this point of view the question of nationality was of no 
importance. Logically, it seemed desirable in these circumstances to 
widen the reservation provided in Article 23, at least so far as the 
exemption from taxation referred to in Article 19(b) was concerned. 
Would it not be desirable to add in Article 23 after the words, "per- 
son who is its national," the words, "or its resident" ? This idea had 
already found expression so far as the civilian component was con- 
cerned in the Agreement on the Armed Forces. 

45. The Chairman said that the Chairman of the Council Deputies 
was discussing this Article at a higher level, and thought that the 
Group could not usefully continue to examine it until the result of 
Mr. Spofford's discussion was known. 

46. The French Representative agreed, and added that M. Alphand 
had already pointed out to the Council Deputies that the question 
dealt with in Article 23 was closely bound up with the question of 
the salary scales for the international staff and would have to be 
examined in connection with it. 

47. The Chairman proposed : 

(1) that the point raised by the Belgian Representative be exam- 
ined when Article 23 was discussed at greater length. 

(2) that an additional "exception" be added, worded as follows: 
"facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions so 
far as necessary for the effective exercise of his functions." 



245 

(3) that the whole Article, without the Belgian amendment, be 
retained in square brackets for discussion at the next 
meeting. 

48. The Working Group approved these proposals. 

Article 26 

49. On the proposal of the United States Representative, the Work- 
ing Group agreed to replace the second half of paragraph 2 of this 
Article ("Nevertheless, pending the entry into force of this Agree- 
ment . . .") by a separate resolution, as had been done in the case of 
the Forces Agreement. 



246 



ANNEX 



MS-R(51) 24 
List of NATO Subsidiary Bodies 

/. Civilian Bodies (to which the Agreement will apply). 



[French designation] 




[English designation] 


Place 


Bureau de production pour 




Defense Production Board 


London 


la defense 








Bureau economique et 




Financial and Economic Board 


Paris 


financier 








Comite d'etudes des transports 


Planning Board for Ocean 


Unspecified 


oceaniques 




Shipping 




//. Military Bodies (to 


W 


hich the Agreement will not 


apply unless 


the Council decides c 


otherwise). 




Comite" militaire 




Military Committee 


Unspecified 


Comite des representants 




Military Representatives 


Washington 


militaires 




Committee 




Groupe permanent (et 




Standing Group (and annexes)* 


Washington 


annexes)* 






London* 
Paris* 


Bureau militaire de 




Military Standardization 


London 


standardisation 




Agency 




Groupes regionaux de 




Regional Planning Groups 


London 


planning 






Paris 
Washington 



The Military Standardization Agency and the Regional Planning 
Groups depend on the Standing Group. The Regional Planning 
Groups are included for the following reason : 

(a) They are still constitutionally in existence. 

(b) It is not proposed to abolish the Canada-United States Re- 
gional Planning Group. 

D-R(51) 48 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 19 June 
1951. 

/. The Signature of the Agreement Between the Parties to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Regarding the /Status of Their Forces. 1 

1. In the name of the Council Deputies, the Chairman welcomed 
Mr. Herbert Morrison, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs, who was attending the meeting for the purpose of 



i Previous reference: D-R(51) 45, par. 2-11 (6 June 1951) 



247 

signing the Agreement on the Status of the NATO Forces. He added 
that he was sure that he was expressing the feeling of all Deputies 
in taking this opportunity of thanking the United Kingdom Govern- 
ment, as host Government, for the facilities and assistance it was 
offering to the Organization by acting in that capacity. 

2. Mr. Morrison thanked the Chairman for his welcome. He said 
first of all how pleased he was to have an opportunity of meeting the 
Deputies personally ; of being, as he thought, the first British Foreign 
Secretary to attend a meeting of the Council Deputies; and of saying 
how happy he was that the Deputies had made their home in London. 
It was a great pleasure to His Majesty's Government to be able to 
make facilities available. His Majesty's Government attached the 
very greatest importance to the work of the Council Deputies. The 
North Atlantic Treaty was the very center point of British foreign 
policy, and the Council Deputies were the civilian center point of the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Since he had become Foreign 
Secretary, and even before, he had followed their work and delibera- 
tions with the closest attention, and today's meeting would give him 
an added personal interest when reading their reports in the future. 
It was a pleasure for him to take part in the signing of this Agree- 
ment on the Status of the Armed Forces, which was a concrete ex- 
pression of their successful work and of the spirit of mutual trust 
and cooperation between the various NATO countries. 

The status of the forces of one country in the territory of another 
was always a ticklish international problem and it reflected great 
credit on the Council Deputies and their advisers that the Agreement 
should have been completed so expeditiously and with such amity. 
It would, he was convinced, do much to smooth the way for that 
close military collaboration on which the security of the Atlantic 
community depended. The signature of the Agreement, which fol- 
lowed so closely upon the reorganization of the Council and the estab- 
lishment of the Financial and Economic Board, was near to marking 
the end of the first stage of the Deputies' work — that of completing 
the North Atlantic Treaty machinery. Even during this formative 
stage the Deputies had been able to accomplish much of lasting value. 
He now looked forward to seeing them get to grips with some of 
the other fundamental and complicated problems of production and 
finance : how to produce most economically the weapons which their 
soldiers needed, and how to distribute the economic burden of defense 
on a fair and equal basis ; for on this the success of the great common 
defense effort now primarily depended. He was confident that they 
would tackle those problems in the same spirit of determination and 
mutual forbearance which had enabled them so successfully to con- 



248 

elude the Agreement which they were about to sign. He wished them 
good luck in their future work, a work of the greatest importance to 
the North Atlantic community of nations. The primary purpose of 
the Organization at this time was to build up an adequate defense 
in order to preserve peace. He felt that the Organization might also 
lead, in the future, to an even closer and more fruitful collaboration 
in wider fields between the nations which formed the North Atlantic 
community. 

3. The Agreement on the Status of NATO Forces was then signed 
by the Plenipotentiaries of NATO Governments. 2 

4. The Belgian Deputy, on signing the Agreement, said that he 
wished to make a declaration in the name of the Belgian, Netherlands 
and Luxembourg Governments. He emphasized the fact that it was 
in no way a reservation, but simply a declaration which seemed to 
be called for owing to the particularly close links which connected 
the three BENELUX countries in the domestic sphere. The declara- 
tion was worded as follows : 

"The armed services of the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Grand 
Duchy of Luxembourg and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 
their civilian components and the members thereof, shall not 
avail themselves of the provisions of the present Agreement to 
claim in the territory of any of these Powers any exemption 
which they do not enjoy in their own territory, in the matter of 
duties, taxes and other charges, the unification of which has been 
or will be effected pursuant to the agreements relating to the 
establishment of the Belgium-Luxembourg-Netherlands Eco- 
nomic Union." 

5. The Chairman then pointed out that there was a draft resolu- 
tion, 3 advocating speedy implementation of the Agreement, worded 
as follows : 

"The Council Deputies, considering that some provisions of the 
Agreement signed today between the Parties to the North At- 
lantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces, can be imple- 
mented by administrative action without the necessity for legis- 
lation and that such implementation would be useful in the 
period before the Agreement is ratified, recommended that sig- 
natory States should give effect to the Agreement provisionally, 
pending ratification, to the maximum extent possible." 



2 For final text of the Agreement, see page 13, supra. The copy of the final 
text later distributed to the Deputies on 10 July 1951 as D-D (51) 138(F) has 
been omitted. 

3 D-D (51) 140 (31 May 1951), omitted since it is identical with the Resolu- 
tion as adopted by the Deputies at the present meeting, par. 5-0, supra. 



249 

6. The Council Deputies : 
Adopted the Resolution. 

7. The French Deputy made a declaration, which he said was not 
intended as a reservation, to the effect that France was the host Gov- 
ernment of SHAPE headquarters and was at present negotiating an 
agreement to regulate the status of the officers attached to SHAPE 
When the negotiations were completed and an Agreement drafted, 
the French Government proposed to submit it for final approval to 
the Council Deputies. He suggested that other Governments who 
might also act as hosts in similar circumstances should follow the 
same procedure. 

8. The Chairman, in answer to a question by the Norwegian Dep- 
uty, said that the Treaty would be made public at once and that he 
himself was about to meet the Press to make a statement in connec- 
tion with it. 



MS-R(51) 25 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
27 June 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff. 1 

1. The Working Group gave a further reading to the draft Agree- 
ment on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff. 

Article 1 

2. In reply to a question by the United States Representative, the 
Chairman made it clear that the term "subsidiary bodies" applied 
both to the International Staff of the Organization and to the Na- 
tional Delegations. Where the military bodies were concerned, the 
exception provided in Article 2 prima facie covered both categories 
of persons. The Council might decide, however, that the Agreement 
would apply to the International Staff and not to the National Repre- 
sentatives. There was nothing in the text to prevent them from so 
deciding. The staff of the Council Deputies, such as the Secretariat, 
the Information Service, etc., did not constitute a subsidiary body in 
themselves, but it was clear that the provisions of the Agreement 
covered such staff. 



i Reference: MS-D(51) 29 (2R) (15 June 1951). 



250 



Article 8 



3. The Italian Representative requested that the Summary Record 
should include the following explanatory note : 

(a) In the case of currencies that are not normally dealt with by 
the Italian Exchange Control authorities, the relevant ex- 
change operations will be effected through an intermediate 
market abroad. 

(b) All transfers that are made within Italy, of funds held by 
the Organization, in the name and favor of the Organization 
itself or of residents abroad, are free; however, transfers in 
favor of residents of the Italian Monet ary Area should be 
made in currencies that are acceptable by the Italian Ex- 
change Control and under the Exchange Control Regula- 
tions in Italy. 

Article 9(b) 

4. The Belgian Representative said that in many countries im- 
ported articles were subject, not only to customs duties proper, but 
also to other taxes such as sales taxes for example. The Working 
Group agreed that the term "customs duties" in Article 9(b) was to 
be understood in its broadest sense and would accordingly cover, not 
only customs duties proper, but all other taxes levied on any articles 
imported into any national territory. This applied in particular to 
United Kingdom purchase tax. 

Article 11 

5. Several Representatives said that their Governments desired to 
abolish the preferential rates at present in force for telecommunica- 
tions for the use of Governments, international organizations, etc. 
The Working Group agreed that the whole of Article 11 should be 
deleted. 

Article 12 

6. It was pointed out that under the terms of Article 4 the juridical 
personality was possessed by the Organization as a whole. It was 
accordingly agreed that the words "acting in the name of the Organi- 
sation" should be added to the end of the Article after the words "the 
Council." The same amendment was made to Article 25 and to the 
new Article 20 (see below) . 

Article 14, par. 1(h) 

7. As in the case of Article 9, the Working Group agreed that the 
term "free of duty" covered all taxes of any kind which were levied 
on an article imported into the territory of one of the States. 



251 



Article 14, par. 3 



7a. In connection with earlier discussion 2 of Article 14, par. 3, the 
United States Representative informed the Working Group that un- 
der existing United States statutes it might be necessary for the 
United States to require notification of visiting representatives as 
provided for in the Article. 

Article 18 

8. The Chairman made it clear that the procedure for deciding 
which categories of officials of the Organization would enjoy the 
privileges defined in the Agreement was in fact a bilateral procedure. 
It was stipulated, however, that any agreement of this kind should be 
communicated to the other Governments. It was also made clear that 
the United Kingdom Government was prepared to accord the privi- 
leges and immunities provided by this Agreement to those categories 
of NATO officials which corresponded to the categories of interna- 
tional officials enjoying such privileges in other countries. 

Article 19(b) 

9. The position with regard to this Article was as follows. The 
United States Government in particular desired to retain the right 
to levy United States income tax on the remuneration paid to United 
States officials employed in the Organization. This provision was 
essential to enable the United States Congress to ratify the Conven- 
tion. On the other hand, the United Kingdom Government could only 
grant exemption from income tax to its own nationals employed in 
the Organization if the text of the Agreement made such exemption 
mandatory for all member States, or unless there were special circum- 
stances which made it possible to differentiate. If the text of the 
Agreement left Governments free to decide whether or not to levy 
taxation, the United Kingdom Government would not be able to 
justify the exemption of United Kingdom officials before Parliament. 
In order to obviate this difficulty, the Chairman and the United 
States Delegation had submitted a new text for Article 19(b), which 
would become a separate Article. The wording of this Article re- 
stated the principle of exemption from taxation. It then provided, 
first, that a member State might make an arrangement with the Or- 
ganization whereby it would pay its nationals in the Organization 
according to its own scale of salaries, and second, that the Organiza- 



2 See MS-R(51) 24, par. 28-33 (14 June 1951). (The whole of the present 
par. 7a was inserted in this Summary Record by corrigendum of 19 July 1951). 



252 

tion would credit to the member State the salaries which such officials 
would have received under the Organization's scale of salaries. Since 
the remuneration would then be paid direct by the member State, it 
could be taxed by that State without prejudice to the mandatory 
force of the principle that remuneration paid by the Organization 
itself was exempt from taxation. The text provided, however, that if 
such an arrangement entered into by a member State and the Organi- 
zation was subsequently modified, the exemption provisions would 
cease to apply and the whole question would have to be the subject 
of new negotiations. 

10. The Chairman pointed out that the latter provision, which was 
intended to meet the requirements of the United States Government, 
meant that, if an agreement of this kind ceased to apply for any 
reason, the whole body of provisions relating to exemption from taxa- 
tion would become null and void, and all officials of the Organization, 
whether they were nationals of the member State w T hich had entered 
into the agreement or nationals of a different State, would become 
liable for income tax. He wished to emphasize the fact that the 
difficulties inherent in the whole paragraph were not the making of 
the United Kingdom Government, which was perfectly prepared to 
exempt its nationals from the taxation in question, provided that 
other Governments accorded similar treatment to their nationals. 

11. The French Representative said that all the members of the 
Working Group were, of course, anxious to help the United States 
and the United Kingdom Governments to find a solution to their 
difficulties. However, it seemed inadmissible that a denunciation, ex 
hypothesi unilateral, of an agreement entered into by twelve member 
States could affect the position of all the other parties to the Agree- 
ment. The position of an official who was not a United States na- 
tional should not be affected by an arrangement which had been 
entered into by the United States and the Organization. The princi- 
ple of exemption from taxation had been adopted in accordance with 
an Agreement entered into by twelve parties; and in the case indi- 
cated by the Chairman of exemption from taxation ceasing to be 
accorded, it was necessary that all twelve parties concerned should 
have the opportunity of expressing their views. 

12. The United States Representative said that his Government 
certainly had no present intention of withdrawing from any arrange- 
ment which might be concluded in these circumstances. The final 
provision of the new Article 19 which he had asked to be included 
was essential from the point of view of the United States Congress. 
The latter wanted to be certain that, if for any reason an agreement 
relating to exemption should be brought to an end, each State would 



253 

be free to apply its own tax law to its own nationals. He thought that 
the guarantees which other Governments, members of the Organiza- 
tion, wanted would be better placed in the bilateral arrangements 
than in the Agreement on NATO Civilian Status itself. 

13. The Italian representative pointed out that the difficulties 
could be overcome by a slight modification of the wording of the last 
sentence. The important point was that, in the event of an arrange- 
ment such as that contemplated by the United States Delegation 
ceasing to apply, the system of exemption would continue to operate 
so long as a new arrangement was not made. What must be avoided 
was a breach in continuity between the system governing officials 
of the Organization after the signature of the present Agreement and 
the new system which would be applied after a withdrawal from a 
bilateral arrangement. 

14. The Chairman noted that the Working Group had no objection 
to the principle of the taxation system envisaged by the United States 
Government. Equally, it was obvious that it was important to pro- 
tect the rights of officials belonging to a third-party State. He asked 
the United States Representative if the deletion of the words "shall 
cease to be appliable" would be acceptable to him. 

15. The United States Representative said that in any case he 
would have to refer the question to his Government. 

16. It was agreed that provisionally the wording proposed by the 
United States Representative would be included in the Agreement as 
a new Article 19 and presented in that way to the Deputies. Pending 
the meeting of Deputies at which the draft Agreement would be 
examined, Representatives would attempt individually to find a 
different form of words or alternatively to see whether they could 
accept the present form. Should a modification appear necessary, the 
Working Group could meet again on the day before, or on the same 
day as, the draft Agreement was to be examined by the Council 
Deputies. 

17. The Canadian Representative asked for the deletion, in the 
second sentence of the new Article 19, of the words "in accordance 
with its own scale" and of the words "of all its nationals." The 
present text seemed to impose an obligation on a State which wished 
to make an arrangement of the kind envisaged to grant automatically 
the national salary scale to officials of its own nationality in the 
Organization and to grant it to all such officials. It was not possible 

I that the Canadian Government might wish to adopt a different scale 
from that of the Organization, if it wanted to increase the salary of 
its nationals, and it was not impossible that such a scale would apply 



254 

18. The Working Group decided to replace the words "its own 
scale" by the words "a scale fixed by the Government" and to delete 
the word "all" before the words "its nationals." 

Article 20 

19. The first observation put forward concerned officials of the 
Organization other than those listed in the Article (Executive Secre- 
tary and Coordinator of the Defense Production Board) who were 
to enjoy the immunities and privileges normally granted to diplo- 
matic representatives of comparable rank. It was pointed out that 
the corresponding official of the FEB would probably have a rank 
lower than that of the two officials referred to in the Article. How- 
ever, the Working Group considered that the case of that official 
would have to be considered in due course. The words "of similar 
rank" had been adopted in preference to the words "of the same 
rank" in order to give the necessary elasticity. 

20. The second observation related to the words of the Article, "in 
accordance with international law." The Chairman pointed out that 
the privileges which foreign diplomatic representatives in fact en- 
joyed in the United. Kingdom might be more extensive than those 
strictly required by international law. They included both legal 
privileges and a certain number of privileges granted in virtue of 
international practice and by way of courtesy. Accordingly, to main- 
tain the words "in accordance with international law" would result, 
so far as certain officials of the Organization were concerned, in 
limiting the grant of diplomatic privileges to those privileges spe- 
cifically determined by international law. The privileges of these 
officials would therefore be less than those of diplomats resident in 
England. In order to avoid this restriction, he suggested that the 
words in question be deleted. 

21. The Belgian Representative pointed out that international law 
provided in fact for two kinds of privilege only : immunity from 
jurisdiction and inviolability. Other privileges were granted simply 
as of courtesy. Now, the Working Group certainly did not intend to 
refuse the courtesy privileges to the officials covered in Article 20. 
He suggested that the present wording be replaced by the words "in 
accordance with international practice." The Chairman thought that 
this would lead to complications, since nobody could define ac- 
curately what was international practice. 

22. The Italian Representative thought that the words "in accord- 
ance with international law" should remain. On the one hand, they 
were to be found in other international conventions; and on the other, 
Italian jurisprudence recognized no privileges in respect of the pri- 



255 

vate activities of diplomatic representatives in Italy. It was there- 
fore necessary from the Italian point of view to retain the words in 
question. 

23. The Working Group came to the conclusion, after discussion, 
that since Article 23 would be retained and the Article enabled a State 
to restrict the privileges granted to its own nationals working for 
NATO on its own territory, the words "in accordance with interna- 
tional law" should be deleted from Article 20. 

Article 23 

24. It was decided to retain Article 23, which gave discretion to a 
State to withhold the grant of privileges and immunities to its own 
nationals except in the three cases listed in the Article. The privi- 
leges and immunities which would not be granted included in particu- 
lar those relating to exemption from customs. The immunity from 
income tax provided for in the new Article 19 would remain. 

25. Mr. Bradford 3 pointed out that Article 23 enabled a Govern- 
ment to restrict the privileges for its own nationals, not only in re- 
spect of the whole body of officials of the international Organization, 
but also of those listed in Article 20, who were to enjoy diplomatic 
privileges and immunities. The Working Group made it clear that 
this was in fact the intention of the text. There was no intention of 
granting to officials referred to in Article 20 diplomatic privileges 
and immunities when they were resident in the country of which 
they were nationals. The French Representative pointed out that, in 
the case of OEEC, the privileges of a head of a diplomatic mission 
granted to the Secretary-General, a French national, were not valid 
in France but only became valid when the Secretary-General was out- 
side France. The Chairman pointed out that, when a foreign Govern- 
ment employed a British subject in their missions in the United 
Kingdom, it was the practice for the United Kingdom Government 
to make arrangements with the foreign Government concerned, 
whereby such British subjects did not enjoy the usual diplomatic 
privileges. 

Article 27 (new) 

26. The United States Representative asked for the insertion of the 
normal provision for withdrawal which appeared in most interna- 
tional Agreements. The Working Group decided to include this 
provision in a new Article 27. 



3 Member of the International Staff of NATO. 



256 



Security Provisions 



26a. The United States Representative stated that his country was 
considering the insertion of some security provision in the Agree- 
ment. However, as yet he had no instructions as to the nature of any 
provision that might be proposed by his Government. 

Compulsory Car Insurance 

27. The Italian Representative pointed out that no provision com- 
pelling officials to take out third-party insurance for a motor car had 
been included in the Agreement. 

28. It was pointed out that with regard to officials of the Organiza- 
tion there had been a recommendation to make third-party insurance 
compulsory. 4 It was finally decided that the Chairman of the Coun- 
cil Deputies should make the recommendation necessary to ensure 
that all international officials should be covered by an insurance 
policy of this kind. 

II. Future Work. 

29. The Chairman noted that the Working Group was now agreed 
on the text of the draft Agreement, apart from the provisions of the 
new Article 19 discussed above. He proposed to have the draft 
Agreement circulated to the Deputies, together with a report which 
he would prepare himself. It was agreed that the draft Agreement 
could be discussed by the Deputies about 22 July and that signature 
might take place about a week after that. Owing to the parlia- 
mentary recess, the Agreement could not be ratified by the United 
Kingdom Government before Parliament reassembled in October. If 
modifications to Article 19 (new) were necessary, the Working Group 
would meet again before the meeting of the Council Deputies. 5 

D-R(51) 58 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 25 July 
1951. 



4 See MS-R ( 51 ) 24, par. 22 ( ii ) (14 June 1951 ) . 

5 Subsequent to this meeting and after informal consultation anions the 
French, United Kingdom and United States Representatives, a revised draft of 
Article 19 was prepared and issued as MS-D(51) 34 (19 July 1951). This 
revised draft formed the basis for subsequent discussions of Article 19. 



257 

V. Draft Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Or- 
ganization, National Representatives and International Staff. 1 

50. The Council Deputies had before them a report by the Chair- 
man of the Working Group and the Draft Agreement. 2 

51. Mr. Evans, Chairman of the Working Group, said that he had 
little to add to his report. The Working Group assumed that the 
report and the Agreement would be sent to Governments for con- 
sideration, in particular the new Article 19, the drafting of which 
had caused some difficulty. 

52. The United States Deputy circulated an amendment to Article 
18(b), the present wording of which appeared to his Delegation to 
be rather too wide. 

53. Mr. Evans pointed out that, if the United States amendment 
were adopted, Article 18(d) should be amended on the same lines. 

54. The Council Deputies : 

(1) Accepted the amendments to Article 18(b) and (d) without 
discussion. 

55. The United States Deputy said that his Government will find 
it necessary to take measures to screen personnel covered by this 
Agreement who will have access to classified United States informa- 
tion. His Government had made a similar statement with regard to 
the Armed Forces Agreement. 

56. The United Kingdom Deputy asked what was the feeling of 
Deputies as to the Standing Group, since it was the Deputies who 
were to decide, under the terms of the Agreement, whether or not the 
Standing Group was to be covered by it. 

57. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that this point need not 
be examined at the present stage since it could be considered, under 
the terms of Article 2 of the Agreement, whenever the Council 
Deputies wished. 

58. The Italian Deputy said that he was not in a position to state 
the views of his Government on the new Article 19, which was at 
present under discussion in Rome. 

59. The Council Deputies : 

(2) Agreed to transmit the Report of the draft Agreement, as 
amended, to their Governments. 

(3) Agreed to place the question on the agenda for final con- 
sideration on 22 August 1951. 



i Previous reference: D-R(51) 20, par. 33-36 (14 March 1951). 
2 D-D (51) 178 (24 July 1951), containing the revised text of the draft Agree- 
ment and a covering Report by the Working Group. 



258 



(4) Took note of the statement made by the United States and 
United Kingdom Deputies referred to in paragraphs 53 and 
54 above. 



D^R(51) 62 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 21 August 
1951. 

/. Signature of the Agreement on the Status of NATO Civilian 
Staff} 

1. The Chairman suggested that the signature of the Agreement 
on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff 2 might take place on Wednes- 
day, 29 August 1951. He pointed out that the signatories should 
be furnished by their Governments with full powers by that date. 

2. The Netherlands Deputy drew attention to Article 19, which 
provided that any member State might conclude an arrangement 
direct with the Council acting on behalf of the Organization, 
whereby the member State would undertake to pay the salaries 
and emoluments to its nationals serving in NATO. These nationals 
would then be subject to tax in their own country. It was intended 
that in the case of such an arrangement the salaries and emoluments 
normally due to the NATO officials concerned would be paid to 
the member State, but this was not expressed in Article 19. The 
Netherlands Deputy might suggest an amendment to complete the 
text in this respect. Besides, his Government would wish him to 
make a statement on the general purport of Article 19, which was 
not in agreement with his Government's general views. They had 
definitely preferred a different provision. This disagreement, how- 
ever, would not lead to withholding the Netherlands signature or 
to a reservation on his Government's behalf. 

3. The Canadian Deputy stated that his Government intended to 
make a formal reservation at the time of the signature of the 
Agreement; it desired to reserve the right to tax, in certain cir- 
cumstances, the salaries and emoluments to be paid by the Organiza- 
tion to officials of Canadian nationality. 

4. The Deputies of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg 
said that they would make a declaration at the time of the signature 



i Previous reference: D-Ii(51) 58, par. 50-59 (25 July 1951) 
2 D-D (51) 178 (24 July 1951). 



259 

of the Agreement regarding the extent to which it would apply 
within the BENELUX Union, on the same lines as the declaration 
made at the time of the signature of the Agreement on the Status 
of Armed Forces. 

5. The United Kingdom Deputy pointed out that this item was on 
the agenda for the meeting of 22 August 1951, and reserved the 
right to state his view on the matter at that meeting. 3 

6. The Chairman considered that it might be possible to refer 
the discussion of Article 19 to the Working Group. He hoped, 
however, that the signature of the Agreement could still take 
place on Wednesday, 29 August 1951. 



D-R(51) 63 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 22 August 
1951. 



V. Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representatives 
and International Staff. 1 

26. The Council Deputies had before them the draft Agreement 2 
and a draft arrangement between the United States and the 
Organization. 3 

27. The Chairman said that the United States could accept the 
Agreement, provided the draft arrangement was approved by the 
Council Deputies. He pointed out that the word "employed" in 
the phrase "salaries and emoluments of United States nationals, 
who are employed by it and assigned to the Organization" did not 
in any way connote control or direction of the substantive activities 
of such officials by the United States Government or affect their 
obligations as international officials as prescribed in Staff Regula- 
tion 3. The word was used to meet the technical requirements of 
United States income tax terminology. 



3 The reference is to the question of taxation, raised in par. 2-3, supra. 
i Previous reference: D-R(51) 62, par. 1-6 (21 August 1951). 

2 D-D (51) 178 (24 July 1951), together with corrigenda of 10 August 1951, 
which have been indicated in the text of Article 18. 

3D-D(51) 211 (21 August 1951), which has been omitted since it is identical 
with the Agreement as signed by the United States and the Organization : 
D-D (51) 252 (9 October 1951). 



2G0 

28. There was no objection to the draft arrangement, other than 
a modification, proposed by the United Kingdom Deputy and 
accepted by the Chairman, to add "Deputies" to "North Atlantic 
Council" in line 9 of the preamble. 

29. The Canadian Deputy said that he must make the following 
reservation in the name of his Government: 

"The Government of Canada approved the Agreement on 
the Status of NATO Kepresentatives contained in Document 
D-D (51) 178 of 24 July, with the reservation that the exemp- 
tion from taxation defined in Article 19 of that Agreement 
shall not extend to a Canadian citizen residing or ordinarily 
resident in Canada. Such a person will remain subject to taxes 
imposed by any law in Canada." 

His Government attached great importance to the reservation 
as a matter of principle, though the practical effects were likely 
to be negligible. His Government wished to make the reservation 
formally when signing the Agreement. 

30. The United Kingdom Deputy said that this reservation, 
particularly if it was to be made on signature of the Agreement, 
reopened a particularly complex question which he had hoped 
had been settled. If the result of the reservation was that Cana.da 
in fact taxed any of its nationals employed by the Organization, 
the United Kingdom might well find itself obliged to tax all 
United Kingdom nationals employed by the Organization. He must 
therefore reserve his position until the precise practical effect of 
the Canadian reservation was known. 

31. The Chairman said that, in the light of these two statements 
and since the effect of the Canadian reservation was not clear, the 
Working Group on the Status Agreement would have to meet 
again. He hoped that it would find a solution quickly, because 
if no solution could be found, the salary scales approved in the 
Budget would have to be reconsidered. 

32. The Netherlands Deputy said that he also had a statement 
to make on Article 19, since his Government was not satisfied with 
that Article; but he would defer making it until the position with 
regard to the Canadian reservation was clear. 

33. The Belgian Deputy said that he had an observation on Article 
19 which he would make when the Working Group met. He added 
that he proposed to make a declaration, in the name of the BENE- 
LUX countries, on signing the Agreement, exactly similar to that 
made on signing the Armed Forces Agreement. He agreed, at the 
Chairman's request, to circulate the text of the declaration to the 
Deputies. 



261 

34. The Portuguese Deputy said that he was awaiting instructions 
from his Government with regard to Article 6. 

35. The United Kingdom Deputy said that his Government con- 
sidered that the Standing Group and its subordinate agencies 
should be covered by the Civil Status Agreement; it might also be 
advisable to include the Military Representatives Committee. This 
could either be done by redrafting Article 2 or by the Deputies 
agreeing in advance among themselves that they would use the 
power given them under Article 2 to include certain military bodies, 
which could be specifically named. His Government was not pre- 
pared to sign the Agreement unless one of these two alternative 
procedures was agreed. 

The Danish Deputy supported the United Kingdom point of 
view. 

36. The French Deputy supported the United Kingdom Deputy 
in principle, but said that Headquarters, as opposed to military 
agencies, should not be included. With regard to procedure, he 
thought it would be better to avail themselves of their powers 
under Article 2. Finally, he asked the Chairman if the date of 
signature could be arranged in such a way as to enable M. Alphand 
to be present. 

37. The Chairman stressed the need for speed if the Agreement 
was to be signed, as he hoped it would be, before the Ottawa, 
meeting. 

38. After further discussion, the Council Deputies: 

Agreed to refer the Canadian reservation on Article 19, and the 
question raised by the United Kingdom Deputy in connection 
with Article 2, to the Working Group. 



MS-R(51) 26 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
24 August 1951 

/. Draft Agreement on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff. 1 

1. The Chairman recalled that, at their meetings of 21 and 22 
August, the Deputies, when examining the draft Agreement on the 



i Reference: D-D (51) 178 (24 July 1951), with corrigenda of 10 August 1951, 
which have been indicated in Article 18. 



262 

Status of NATO Civilian Staff, had made a number of observa- 
tions. 2 He proposed taking each in turn. 

2. The United Kingdom Deputy had suggested that the Stand- 
ing Group, the Military Representatives Committee, and other 
military bodies should be covered by the Agreement on the Status 
of Civilian Staff. If this in fact was to be done, the first question 
to decide was whether Article 2 of the draft Agreement should be 
amended or left as it was. In the latter case, the Council would 
simply be asked to adopt a Resolution. 

3. The majority of Representatives were ready to accept the 
inclusion of military bodies in the Agreement on the Status of 
Civilian Staff. They also agreed not to amend the text of Article 2, 
so as not to complicate matters further. The United States Rep- 
resentative, however, pointed out that it was not certain whether 
the Standing Group wanted to be covered by the Agreement on 
the Status of Civilian Staff. He believed that the Standing Group 
would prefer to be included in the Agreement on the Armed Forces. 

4. It was pointed out by several Representatives that the Stand- 
ing Group, although composed of representatives of the forces, 
was not organized into a body like an armed force. It was composed 
of representatives of each of the States and therefore was much 
more like the agencies covered by the Agreement on Civilian 
Staff. 

5. The Working Group finally expressed its agreement with the 
United Kingdom Deputy's proposal at the Council Deputies' meet- 
ing. The Chairman was to prepare a draft resolution. At the request 
of the French Representative, the draft resolution was to contain 
an accurate list of the names of the various subsidiary bodies 
covered by the Agreement. The purpose of this was to ensure that, 
if fresh subsidiary bodies were created, they should not automatically 
be included in the Agreement without the necessary resolution of 
the Council. 

6. The Chairman recalled that the United States Deputy had 
suggested that the text of Article 2 should be made more elastic, 
so as not expressly to exclude the possibility of the Council decid- 
ing to make the Agreement on Civilian Staff applicable to Head- 
quarters. 

7. The Working Group finally decided to leave Article 2 in its 
original form. The Regional Planning Groups which were in 
process of being wound up would not be covered by the Agreement. 



2 D-D (51) 62, par. 1-6 (21 August 1951; D-R(51) 63, par. 26-38 (22 August 
1951). Comments were also made by the Deputies at their meeting of 25 July 
1951: D-R(51) 58, par. 50-59. 



263 

8. The Chairman turned to consideration of Article 19. He 
recalled that the Canadian Deputy had stated that he would be 
obliged to make a reservation at the time the Agreement was 
signed, to the effect "that exemption from taxation imposed by 
any law in Canada on salaries and emoluments shall not extend 
to a Canadian citizen resident or ordinarily resident in Canada." 
He drew attention to the position of the United Kingdom Govern- 
ment as defined by him on a previous occasion. 3 Hence, if Canada 
maintained her reservation, the United Kingdom Government would 
also be obliged to add a reservation to the effect that the United 
Kingdom would be entitled to tax its nationals if any other country 
did the same, unless such taxation was made in accordance with the 
arrangements provided for in Article 19. This would arise, for 
instance, if the Organization were to recruit a Canadian direct, 
were to pay him, and if this Canadian were then taxed by his 
own Government. 

9. Mr. Charlton 4 pointed out that the inclusion of the Canadian 
reservation would upset the administrative arrangements of NATO. 
The salaries had, in fact, been fixed free of tax. If, therefore, these 
salaries were to be taxed, it would be necessary to cancel all the 
contracts which had been made, to make a considerable increase 
in salaries (and, as an additional complication, to a varying extent 
according to country), and, as a result, to raise the contributions 
from the various countries as well. 

10. The Canadian Representative stated that for the time being 
he could only make known the Canadian Government's intention 
to append a reservation to the Agreement. The point raised would 
have to be re-examined by the Canadian Cabinet. He wished to 
make it clear that the effect of this reservation should not be ex- 
aggerated in the manner suggested by Mr. Charlton. Clearly, the 
Canadian Government would not upset the whole working of 
NATO, though it might mean that Canadians might be excluded 
from the Secretariat. 

11. Mr. Charlton stated that the problem was an urgent one, 
because the Organization was employing Canadian citizens and 
was negotiating to employ others. 

12. The Danish Representative suggested that, if the Canadian 
Government maintained its reservation, it should do so in such 
a way that in practice the reservation was inoperative. 

13. The Netherlands Representative stated that his Government 
had not understood that the system described in Article 19, by 



3 See MS-R(51) 25, par. 9 (27 June 1951). 
* Member of the International Staff of NATO. 



264 

which a Government could pay directly any of its citizens employed 
in NATO, would only apply in cases where the salary paid by 
such Government was higher than that paid by NATO. He would, 
therefore, have to consult his Government on this point. 

14. The Chairman proposed that the Working Group should 
wait for the final decision of the Canadian Cabinet. If the reserva- 
tion was withdrawn, it would not be necessary to call another 
meeting of the Working Group, since the text of the Agreement 
would not contain any amendment. If the reservation was main- 
tained, it would be necessary to call another meeting to reconsider 
the problem. It was in any case doubtful whether the Agreement 
could be signed before the Deputies left for Canada. 

D-R(51) 66 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 14 Sep- 
tember 1951. 



V. Agreement on Status of NATO, National Representatives and 
International Staff. 

52. The Chairman suggested that this item was in fact cleared, 
since the reservations in connection with it, in particular that of 
the Canadian Government, had now been withdrawn. 

53. The Canadian Deputy said that his Government had with- 
drawn its reservation on Article 19, because it considered that the 
principle of the right of any nation to tax its nationals working 
for NATO remained unaffected. His Government also wished it 
to be made quite clear that the signature of the Agreement should 
be without prejudice to the position of the Canadian Government 
in respect of any future arrangements regarding Canadians em- 
ployed by international organizations. His Government also in- 
tended to make an agreement with the Organization under the 
provisions of Article 19 similar to that made by the United States. 
The final draft of that Agreement would not be ready in time 
for the signature of the main Agreement, but would be circulated 
in draft form well in advance of the time when the Canadian 
Government proposed to sign the subsidiary Agreement. 

54. The Chairman, supported by the United Kingdom Deputy, 
thanked the Canadian Government for the spirit of compromise it 
had shown, which was an important factor in helping the progress 
of the Organization. 



265 

55. The Chairman suggested that the following documents should 
be formally approved at the same time as the Agreement was 
signed : 

(a) The resolution advocating administrative action to give 
effect to the Agreement before parliamentary ratification. 

(b) The joint statement by the BENELUX countries. 

(c) The resolution in connection with Article 2 of the Agree- 
ment. 

56. The Portuguese Deputy said that his Government would make 
a reservation on signature in connection with Article 6. At the 
request of the Chairman, he agreed to submit a text of the reserva- 
tion so that Deputies could see whether it would substantially affect 
the position of their own Governments, which at first sight seemed 
unlikely. 

57. The Netherlands Deputy made the following statement of 
his Government's position with regard to Article 19 : 

"In connection with Article 19 of the draft Agreement con- 
cerning the status of the staff of the North Atlantic Treaty Or- 
ganization, I wish to submit that the fiscal position of the staff 
of international organizations has been studied by the member 
States of the Brussels Treaty. Representatives of the competent 
authorities of these member States have discussed this subject 
in detail in Paris on 5 February 1951. Certain recommenda- 
tions were unanimously adopted and submitted to Govern- 
ments. The experts expressed the wish that these recommenda- 
tions be taken into account whenever future international 
organizations were set up. As to the income tax, it was recom- 
mended that an international organization shall fix the remu- 
neration of its staff so as to allow for the imposition by the 
Organization of an annual tax on all salaries, allowances and 
emoluments, etc.; this tax to be levied by means of a deduction 
at the source ; the salaries paid by the international organization 
to its officials to be exempt from taxation in member States; 
member States, in levying income tax, to deduct an amount 
proportioned to the remuneration in question. 

"These recommendations have been taken into consideration 
not only by the member States of the Brussels Treaty, but 
also by the Fiscal Commission of the Social and Economic 
Council of the United Nations. 

"The Netherlands representative in our Working Group 
introduced the aforementioned recommendations. I would like 
now to draw them to the special attention of Deputies as my 



266 



Government feels that they offer a satisfactory and equitable 

solution to the tax problem. 

"Article 19 is based on different principles. In the interest of 

unanimity my Government, however, does not wish to withhold 

its cooperation. 

"If the recommendations of Paris should in the future gain 

wider recognition, my Government might take the initiative 

for a reconsideration of the provisions of Article 19." 

58. The Council Deputies: 

Agreed that the Agreement should be signed in Ottawa, if 
materially possible, during the Council Meeting. The Agree- 
ment would be signed by Council Deputies, who would obtain 
the necessary plenipotentiary powers. The three documents 
referred to in paragraph 55 above would be formally approved 
at the same time as the signature of the Agreement. 



D-R(51) 67 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 20 Sep- 
tember 1951. 



V. Agreement on Status of NATO, National Representatives and 
International Staff. 

17. The Council Deputies: 

On behalf of their Governments signed the Agreement on the 
Status of NATO, National Representatives and International 
Staff. 1 



D-R(51) 68 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 3 October 
1951. 



i For final text, see page 34, supra. This text was also distributed on 
20 October 1951, for information and record purposes, as D-D (51) 178(F). 



267 

IX. Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representatives 
and International Staff. 1 

52. The Chairman pointed out that there were two resolutions 
and one declaration in connection with the above Agreement which 
it had been intended to adopt or to note at the time of the signature 
of the Agreement. Since that had not been done, he proposed that 
the Council Deputies should formally do so at the present meeting. 

53. The Council Deputies: 

(1) Adopted the Resolution recommending provisional imple- 
mentation of the Agreement. 2 

(2) Adopted the Resolution deciding to apply the Agreement 
to certain military bodies of NATO. 3 

(3) Took note of the Declaration by the Governments of 
Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. 4 

D-R(51) 88 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 12 De- 
cember 1951 

/. Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representatives 
and International Staff. 

1. The Council Deputies signed an agreed minute to the above 
Agreement, worded as follows: 

The Council Deputies, having observed the discrepancies in 
the English and French text of Articles 14 and 16 of the Agree- 
ment on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, 
National Representatives and International Staff, signed in 
Ottawa on the 20th September 1951, agree on behalf of their 
Governments that the English text is correct and the French 
text should read as follows: 

"Article 14. Le personnel officiel de secretariat qui accom- 
pagne le representant d'un Etat membre et qui n'est pas vise 
aux articles 12 ou 13 beneficie, au cours de son sejour sur le 
territoire d'un autre Etat membre pour l'exercice de ses fonc- 
tions, des privileges et immunites prevus au paragraphe 1(b), 
(c), (e), (f), (h) et (i) et au paragraphe 2 de Particle 13. 






i Previous reference: D-R(51) 67, par. 17 (20 September 1951). 

2 D-D (51) 206 (16 August 1951). 

3 D-D (51) 229 (7 September 1951). 

4 D-D (51) 224 (31 August 1951). 



268 



"Article 16. Les dispositions des articles 12 a 14 ci-dessus 
ne peuvent obliger un Etat a accorder l'un quelconque des 
privileges et immunites prevus par ces articles a un de ses 
ressortissants ou a un de ses represent ants, ainsi qu'a un mem- 
bre du personnel officiel de ce dernier." 



MS-R(52) 1 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
16 January 1952 1 



II. Examination of Proposed Claims Procedure under Article 
VIII of the Status of Forces Agreement. 2 

26. The Working Group proceeded to the examination of the 
claim procedure proposed in D-D (51) 269, Annexes A and B. 

Annex A 

27. The Chairman pointed out that it was intended that the 
procedural arrangements should apply only when Article VIII had 
come into force. 

28. It was agreed that there should be no legally binding agree- 
ment, but simply a general administrative understanding on the 
method of implementing Article VIII. It was agreed that the 
draft Resolution should be redrafted to this effect and that Annex 
B should be examined on this basis. 

Annex B 

29. Paragraph 1(a). It was agreed to delete the words "or De- 
partment" and substitute "or Offices." 

30. Paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c). It was agreed to delete the 
words "or Department" whenever they occurred. In paragraph 
2(a), it was agreed to amend the words "paragraph 1 or 2 of 
Article VIII" to "paragraphs 1, 2 or 4 of Article VIII." In para- 



i The Chairman for all the meetings of the Working Group recorded in 
MS-R(52) 1-9 (16 January 1952 to 10 July 1952) was Mr. W. V. J. Evans, 
United Kingdom Representative. 

2 D-D (51) 269, Annexes A and B (29 October 1951). For the text of Article 
VIII, see page 19, supra. 



269 

graph 2(c), it was also agreed to amend "within 21 days" to "within 
6 weeks." 

31. Paragraph 3. It was agreed that there should be inserted in 
paragraph 3 a sentence to the effect that if the receiving State 
so requested, the authorities of the sending State should make 
such arrangements as were practicable to secure that the Office of the 
Receiving State be notified directly by the service unit or forma- 
tion concerned. 

32. Paragraph 3(d). It was agreed to delete the last sentence. 
It was also agreed that in its report the Working Group would 
suggest that it might be advisable for the Military Standardization 
Agency to consider the question of a standard form. Each country 
might submit, as a guide, the form which it commonly used. 

33. Paragraph 3(e). It was agreed to amend the word "require" 
to "request" and to delete the words "in its own interests." It was 
also agreed that the United Kingdom Delegation and the Secretariat 
should draft a sentence to the effect that the Office of the Sending 
State should notify the Office of the Receiving State as to any 
disciplinary action taken. 

34. The United States Representative reserved his country's posi- 
tion on the final draft of this point. 

35. Paragraph 5(a) (vii). It was agreed to add the words "or 
property" and "personnel." 

36. Paragraph 5(b). It was agreed to delete paragraph 5(b). 

37. Paragraph 6. Consideration of this paragraph was left over 
to the next discussion of the document. 3 



MS-R(52) 2 

Summary .Record of the Meetings of the Working Group on 
Status, 17 and 18 January 1952 

/. Consideration of Draft Protocol on the Status of Allied Head- 
quarters. 1 

Preamble 

1. In reply to the Norwegian Representative, the Chairman said 
that this Protocol should apply at the same time to Headquarters, 
their forces and the civilian component of their staff. He proposed 
to draft a Preamble to that effect. 



3 See MS-R(52) 3, par. 11-20 (22 January 1952). 
i Reference: D-D (51) 300 (R) (3 January 1952). 



270 

2. The Working Group : 

(1) Agreed that the Preamble drafted by the Chairman 2 should 
be considered at a later date. "SHAPE" should be replaced 
by "Supreme Headquarters." 

Articles 1 and 2 

3. The Canadian Representative said that this Protocol should 
apply to all principal and subordinate international Headquarters 
down to the level of Commander-in-Chief. Local arrangements would 
be the subject of a bilateral agreement with the host countries. 

4. In the course of a discussion on the interpretation of the term 
"Supreme Allied Headquarters" and "Subordinate Allied Head- 
quarters," the French Representative said, with respect to subpara- 
graph (d) of Article 2, that since the draft Protocol had been pre- 
pared, the NATO Defense College had been set up. The Protocol 
should perhaps apply to the cadres of bodies of this type. 

5. The Danish Representative thought it preferable to leave [it to] 
the Council Deputies to decide in each individual case whether a 
subordinate Headquarters was in question. 

6. The Canadian Representative thought that it would be better to 
adopt a very broad definition covering all international military 
Headquarters of some substance, which would exclude liaison mis- 
sions, training schools, etc. He added that his Government would 
have difficulty in signing any Protocol which included bodies such as 
the one to which the French Representative had referred. 

7. The SHAPE Representative gave a list of the various Head- 
quarters subordinate to SHAPE Supreme Headquarters and com- 
manded by a Commander-in-Chief. There were various subordinate 
Headquarters which depended on these Headquarters and were not 
directly linked with SHAPE, among which only the Headquarters 
Allied Land Forces in Norway and Denmark were subordinate but 
not international Headquarters. They alone would be excluded from 
the definition of subordinate international Headquarters. 

8. The Representatives of Belgium and Portugal thought that the 
receiving State could be left to decide in each individual case whether 
any given Headquarters was covered by the definition appearing in 
the Protocol. 

9. In the course of a discussion during which the Chairman pro- 
posed to include the definition of force and civilian component in the 
Protocol, the French Representative said that it would not be pos- 
sible to extend the special provisions of the Protocol to all civilian 



2MS-D(52) 3 (18 January 1952) 



271 

personnel; the Protocol should not apply to personnel recruited 
locally, who were subject to common law, and he therefore considered 
it unnecessary to give any definitions other than those of the 
Agreement. 

10. The SHAPE Representative observed that the Supreme Head- 
quarters was gradually losing the characteristics of a purely military 
and operational Headquarters. SHAPE was finding it more and 
more impossible to entrust certain specialized tasks to military 
personnel. 

11. The Working Group : 

(2) Requested the Chairman to prepare a redraft of this Article 
taking into account the points raised in the course of discus- 
sion, particularly with respect to the definition of force and 
civilian component (Articles 1 and 3 of MS-D(52) 3). 

Article 3 

12. The French Representative explained that it had been neces- 
sary to take a general rule as a guide when interpreting the Agree- 
ment. The Protocol distinguished between, on the one hand, the 
members of a Headquarters subject to the provisions of the Agree- 
ment when they were not engaged in the performance of their duties, 
and, on the other hand, the members of the same Headquarters when 
engaged in the performance of their duties. In the latter case, the 
rights and obligations of the sending State were vested in or incum- 
bent upon SHAPE. It seemed to him that the relations between a 
State and its nationals could only exist as between SHAPE and its 
staff when the latter were on duty. 

13. The Chairman, supported by several Representatives, thought 
that it would be better, generally speaking, to consider SHAPE as 
the sending State, even if the Articles of the Agreement had to be 
examined one by one to lay down the exceptions to this rule. It ap- 
peared to him that it would sometimes be difficult to decide when an 
individual was or was not engaged in the performance of his duties. 

14. The SHAPE Representative confirmed that SHAPE wished 
to be considered as the sending State. In the case of claims in respect 
of traffic accidents for which SHAPE was responsible, SHAPE 
would be considered as the sending State and such claims would be 
paid out of the international budget. 

15. After long discussion, the Working Group : 

(3) Requested the Chairman to prepare a redraft of this Article 
along the lines indicated in paragraph 13, above. (See 
Article 4 of MS-D(52) 3). 






272 



Article 4 



16. The Chairman and several Representatives considered that 
members of Allied Headquarters should carry an individual or col- 
lective movement order, in addition to their identity card. 

17. The SHAPE Representative confirmed that members of Head- 
quarters always carried such movement orders and for this reason 
the Protocol required only an identity card. 

18. The Italian Representative thought that it would be desirable 
for the Headquarters to provide the host country at regular intervals 
with a list of dependents. The Chairman replied that it would be 
preferable to include this provision in the bilateral agreement. 

Article 5 

19. The Working Group : 

(4) Agreed that the word "military" should be inserted in the 
English text before the word "police" (see Article 6 of 
MS-D(52) 3). 

Article 6 

20. In reply to a question by the United States Representative, the 
Chairman pointed out that, according to document D-D (51) 217, 
immovable property (fixtures) provided with or without charge by 
the receiving State would revert to the possession of the receiving 
State when they were no longer needed by the Headquarters. 

21. The Italian Representative raised the question of a distinction 
to be drawn between permanent buildings and alterations on the one 
hand, and semi-permanent buildings and alterations on the other 
hand. 

22. Following a discussion on this point, the United States Repre- 
sentative inquired whether the French Government would agree to 
the transfer of the provisions of this Article to the bilateral agree- 
ment between the Supreme Headquarters and the receiving State. 
The majority of Representatives preferred to see them included in 
the bilateral agreement. 

23. The Working Group : 

(5) Agreed that Article 6 should be deleted, on the clear under- 
standing that the corresponding provision would be included 
in the bilateral agreement between the Headquarters and 
the receiving State. 

Article 7 

24. The Canadian Representative considered that the wording of 
this Article was far too broad, and he thought that there should be 



273 

a single negotiating party entitled to conclude contracts, particularly 
in view of the fact that the Supreme Headquarters alone possessed a 
budget. The United States Representative associated himself with 
this view. 

25. The Chairman said that he would like to see a wording adopted 
along the lines of the provisions of the Agreement on the Status of 
NATO Civilian Staff, to the effect that the Supreme Headquarters 
should possess juridical personality. 

26. After some discussion, the Working Group : 

(6) Requested the Chairman to prepare a redraft of this Article. 
The French Representative agreed in principle, but reserved 
his final approval. 

Article 8 

27. The French Representative stated that SHAPE enjoyed im- 
munity in respect of measures of execution of court decisions, but 
that it did not enjoy immunity from the obligation to appear before 
the court. 

28. The Representatives as a whole were agreed in recognizing that 
SHAPE should not enjoy the latter immunity. As the United States 
Representative had no instructions on this point, however, he reserved 
his position. 

29. The Chairman said that in D-D (52) 2, par. 15, SHAPE 
requested that a new Article should be inserted between Articles 8 
and 9, to the effect that : whenever SHAPE made for its own official 
use important purchases whose price included excise duties and sales 
tax, Governments of States parties to the North Atlantic Treaty 
should take appropriate administrative measures to ensure the remis- 
sion or reimbursement of the amount of such duties and taxes. 
SHAPE was here proposing to repeat a provision appearing in 
Article 10 of the Agreement on the Status of NATO Civilian Staff. 
He raised the question whether SHAPE should be assimilated to the 
civilian side of NATO in respect of provisions relating to such duties 
and taxes. 

30. The French Representative pointed out that the Agreement on 
the Status of the Armed Forces did not provide for exemptions of 
this type. 

31. The United States Representative was of the opinion that these 
questions should be settled on a bilateral basis. The Canadian Repre- 
sentative pointed out, however, that if the Deputies were to accept 
the principle of a bilateral agreement in this case, the provision in 
question would be contrary to the agreement on the Status of the 
Armed Forces. 



274 

agreement solution would introduce differences between the various 
countries, and SHAPE might tend to develop only in those countries 
in which these taxes were not charged. If this question was not 
settled satisfactorily in one or the other of the special agreements, it 
would be referred to a higher level and re-examined, but, in fact, 
SHAPE would be compelled to accept a fait accompli. Finally, he 
added that these taxes were fairly high — about 17% — and this was a 
sort of tithe levied by the French Government upon the international 
budget without there being any reciprocity for other countries. 

33. The Chairman agreed that paragraph 8 of Article IX of the 
Agreement on the Status of the Armed Forces did in fact apply to 
SHAPE in this case. 

Article 9 

34. The French Representative first of all submitted his comment 
on paragraph (b) of Article 9, basing these on the report addressed 
to the Deputies. 3 He pointed out that the volume of expenditure of a 
Headquarters was greater than that of a civilian body and that the 
facilities granted to the latter could not therefore be granted to 
SHAPE. He added that the Agreement with SHAPE had been in 
force for a year without any difficulties in implementation *having 
arisen. 

35. The SHAPE Representative said that SHAPE wished for the 
same treatment as, for example, the Committee of Military Repre- 
sentatives. While it was true that the volume of expenditure was 
greater than that of a civilian body, 90% of the total expenditure of 
the international budget was incurred in France. SHAPE considered 
there was no need to add additional restrictions to Article 8 of the 
Agreement, whereby the receiving State was the sole judge of the 
facilities to be granted to Headquarters. If this Agreement had 
worked out satisfactorily during the past year, it was because of the 
extensive facilities the French Government had been able to grant as 
a result of EPU. If the EPU ceased to function, SHAPE could no 
longer utilize the currency exchange system whereby any currency 
held by a NATO country — with the exception of U.S. and Canadian 
dollars — might be converted into any other NATO currency. 

36. The French Representative stated that in a text which would 
apply to all NATO countries it would not be advisable to go beyond 
the wording of paragraph (b) of Article 9. Though 90% of expendi- 
ture was paid in French francs, SHAPE had every possibility of 
converting its other currencies. 

37. The Italian Representative said that his Government would 



3 D-D (52) 2 (3 January 1952) 



275 

prefer transfers of SHAPE funds from one country to another to 
conform to the laws and regulations of the receiving State. 

38. The Danish Representative stated that his Government would 
like transactions involving Danish crowns to be effected through the 
National Bank of Denmark. 

39. The SHAPE Representative explained that originally SHAPE 
was only to have current accounts in the "Banque de France" ; subse- 
quently it had opened accounts with the national banks of NATO 
countries and at the present time all its transactions in Danish crowns 
were carried out in Denmark. 

40. He added that Article 9 should give greater facilities to 
SHAPE. As an example, he mentioned that, in the event of France 
not having any Norwegian crowns, the Supreme Headquarters would 
find itself in the impossibility of transferring money to Headquarters 
Northern Command. He therefore urged that the facilities granted 
to SHAPE should not be confined to the somewhat vague sentence 
in paragraph (b) of Article 9. 

41. The Representatives in the Working Group all being agreed 
that the French text was acceptable, the Working Group : 

(7) Accepted provisionally the text of Article 9, while reserving 
the possibility of re-examining it at another meeting. It was, 
of course, understood that, as at present worded, this Article 
committed the Government concerned to accord SHAPE 
every facility at its disposal. 

Article 10 

42. The Norwegian Representative stated that his Government 
would like the clauses adopted for this Article to be the same as those 
in Articles 6 and 7 of the Ottawa Agreement. 

43. The Portuguese Representative recalled that his Government 
had already made a reservation with regard to Article 6 of the 
Agreement on the Status of Civilian Staff. This reservation was 
maintained. 

44. The SHAPE Representative said that SHAPE would have 
liked to have been granted inviolability for its Headquarters ; it was 
able to secure from the French Government inviolability only as re- 
gards its documents; this, however, was the more essential of the two. 

45. The Chairman considered that the third paragraph of Article 
10 went a little too far in permitting the authorities of the receiving 
State to request that a qualified representative of the Headquarters 
concerned satisfy himself in their presence that archives were of an 
official character. 

46. After a further exchange of views, the French Representative 



276 

agreed that the Article should refer only to a check being carried out 
by a qualified representative of the Headquarters at the request of 
the receiving State. 

47. The Working Group : 

(8) Agreed that the latter part of this Article should be re- 
drafted to take into account the comments made during the 
discussion. 

Article 11 

48. The Chairman, speaking as United Kingdom Representative, 
considered that it would not be desirable to grant diplomatic privi- 
leges and immunities to a new category of staff. He added that the 
Agreement on the Status of Armed Forces provided for immunities 
enabling this category of personnel to perform their duties, and he 
proposed that Article 11 be deleted. He considered that his Govern- 
ment would not be in a position to sign the Protocol if it included this 
Article in any form whatsoever. 

49. A number of delegates agreed with the United Kingdom 
Representative. 

50. The French Representative pointed out that the immunities in 
question had been granted largely because of the personal prestige of 
General Eisenhower, and he added that France would maintain 
on a unilateral basis the immunities already granted to General 
Eisenhower. 

51. The Working Group : 

(9) Agreed to delete Article 11. 

Article 12 

52. The Chairman considered that the manner in which this Article 
was to operate would have to be determined by a bilateral agreement 
in every case, and he proposed that the Article be deleted purely and 
simply. 

53. The Danish Representative agreed and said that the adoption 
of the Article would entail a modification of Danish legislation. 

54. The French Representative pointed out that the Article had 
been included in the Protocol because it concerned all NATO member 
States and all members of Headquarters. The object of a military 
postal service was to enable members of Headquarters to pay inland, 
instead of international, postal rates when corresponding with their 
families. So far, in addition to a French civilian post office, there 
were two post offices, one British and the other American. This Arti- 
cle would make it possible to grant to nationals of all countries the 
same privileges as were granted to American and British personnel. 



i 



277 

55. The Chairman said that he did not feel it was necessary that 
there should be a multilateral agreement to this end; a bilateral 
agreement would suffice. 

56. The SHAPE Representative would prefer this Article to re- 
main in the Protocol. 

57. As a number of delegates were in favor of deleting this Article, 
the Working Group : 

(10) Agreed to delete Article 12 provisionally and to re-examine 
possible solutions at a subsequent meeting. 

Settlement of Disputes 

58. The Working Group : 

(11) Requested the Chairman to draft an Article in this connec- 
tion on the lines of Article XVI of the Armed Forces 
Agreement. 

Article 13 

59. The Chairman proposed that the first sentence of this Article 
be deleted and pointed out that a clause would have to be inserted 
which provided for its denunciation. He proposed that the Article 
be revised accordingly. 

Article 14 

60. Some delegates considered that this Article should refer to 
Article XV, as well as to Article XVII, of the Agreement. 

61. The Working Group : 

(12) Took note of the above. 

//. Examination of tlie Draft Agreement between the French Gov- 
ernment and SHAPE. 4 

62. After a brief examination, comments were made on Articles 1, 
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 17 of this draft Agreement. 

63. The Working Group : 

(13) Agreed to re-examine at a later meeting the comments 
made. 5 

777. Program of Work of the Group. 

64. The Working Group : 

(14) Agreed to meet on Tuesday, 22 January, to examine the 
draft report on the implementation of the Armed Forces 



4 D-D (51) 301 (R) (3 January 1952). 

5 See MS-R(52) 4 (23 January 1952). 



278 

Agreement, 6 the draft resolution on the implementation of 
Article VIII, 7 the revised draft Protocol extending the 
Agreement to cover Allied Headquarters, 8 and finally, the 
draft report of the Working Group to the Council 
Deputies. 9 

MS-R(52) 3 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
22 January 1952 

/. Examination of the Draft Report on Implementation of the Status 
of Forces Agreement. 1 



4. The Secretary of the Working Group said that the Icelandic 
Deputy was to make a statement during the week, which would refer 
to the statement made on behalf of Iceland at the time when the 
treaty had been discussed. Iceland wished to reserve the possibility 
of not ratifying the Protocol, as she had signed a separate treaty with 
the United States determining the status of United States forces in 
Iceland. 2 



10. The Netherlands Representative then raised the following ques- 
tion. If a member of a force was arrested for an offense by the au- 
thorities of the receiving State, and the latter did not wish to exercise 
their right of jurisdiction, were they entitled to request the military 
authorities of the sending State to take the offender into custody? 
The majority of the Group replied in the affrmative and agreed that, 



6MS-D(52) 2 (21 January 1952), which has been omitted. 

7MS-D(52) 1 (18 January 1952). This has been omitted since it is identical 
with the text in D-D (52) 26, except for minor textual variations which are 
noted in the latter document. 

8MS-D(52) 3 (18 January 1952). 

9MS-D(52) 4 (21 January 1952), which has been omitted, since it is sub- 
stantially the same as D-D (52) 24 (24 January 1952). 

i Reference: MS-D(52) 2 (21 January 1952), which has been omitted. Of 
Item I in this Summary Record, only par. 4 and 10 are reproduced above, the 
remaining paragraphs (1-3, 5-9) being concerned only with the temporary steps 
being taken by various States to secure provisional implementation of the 
Status of Forces Agreement in advance of its ratification. 

2 For text of this treaty, see MS-D(51) 31 (25 May 1951). 



279 

if a sending State wished to exercise its right of jurisdiction, it 
should naturally be responsible for the custody of the offender. 

//. Examination of the Draft Resolution and Annex on the Imple- 
mentation of Article VIII. 3 

Annex, par. 3(a) 

11. The Chairman pointed out that the second sentence of subpara- 
graph 3(a) had been added in order to meet a point raised by the 
Belgian Delegate. The United States Representative felt his Govern- 
ment might not be in favor of the addition and recalled the reserva- 
tion he had made previously touching this matter. 

Annex, par. 3(e) 

12. The Chairman considered it would be advisable to substitute 
"such other action as" for "such action as" in the last line of sub- 
paragraph 3(e). 

Annex, par. 3(f) 

13. The Chairman pointed out that the United States wished to 
make a reservation concerning paragraph 3(f). Paragraph 5 of 
Article VIII related to claims made against a force in respect of 
damage caused by it to another party. It would be useful if the 
receiving State could be informed whether the appropriate discipli- 
nary measures had been taken by the sending State against the person 
(whether a member of a force or civilian component) responsible for 
the damage. He considered that the reply of the sending State should 
be given only if specifically requested. 

14. After a brief discussion, the Working Group : 

(5) Agreed to modify the drafting of subparagraph 3(f) so as 
to specify that requests of that kind should be confined to 
individual cases and be met only after the claim for com- 
pensation had been settled by the receiving State. 

Annex, par. 5 

15. Following a remark made by the Netherlands Delegate, it was 
decided to substitute "a third party" for "the person" in the last line 
of subparagraph 5(vii). 

3 Reference: MS-D(52) 1 (18 January 1952). This has been omitted since, 
except for minor textual variations, it is identical with the text in D-D (52) 26 
(23 January 1952), the points of difference being indicated in the latter docu- 
ment to which, therefore, reference should be made in connection with the 
discussion at the present meeting. 



280 



Annex, par. 6 



16. The Chairman withdrew a request that this paragraph be 
inserted in the document, but nevertheless considered that it would 
be entirely to the advantage of the Contracting Parties to do so. 
Several members of the Group agreed. 

17. The French Representative pointed out that the only weakness 
of this paragraph was that he found it difficult to agree that the 
responsibility of an insurer should replace that of the State. In view 
of this, he proposed the addition of the following: "without prejudice 
to the responsibility of the State." 

18. The Working Group : 

(6) Agreed to retain paragraph 6, amended as follows: 

". . . for the purpose of regulating claims arising out 
vehicle accidents may arrange with any other Contracting 
Party to extend such arrangements ..." 

The Resolution 

19. The Chairman proposed that the English version of the last 
line of the resolution be amended to read "is brought into effect" 
instead of "enters into force," since the latter wording might wrongly 
suggest that it would be put into effect after the ratification of the 
Agreement. 

20. The Working Group : 

(7) Approved the draft resolution as amended in accordance 
with the above interpretation. 

///. Examination of the Revised Draft Protocol on the Status of 
Allied Headquarters. 4 " 

Preamble 

21. The French Representative considered that the Preamble, in 
mentioning the establishment of a Headquarters, should refer to a 
special agreement. He would prefer the second paragraph of the 
Preamble to read as follows: "Considering that International Mili- 
tary Headquarters may be established in their territories through 
special agreements, under the North Atlantic Treaty." 

22. The Chairman proposed that in the English version the word 
"arrangement" be preceded by "separate." 

23. The Working Group : 



4 Reference: MS-D(52) 3 (18 January 1952) 



281 

(8) Approved the Preamble, with the amendments made to the 
English and French versions. 

Article 1 

24. The Chairman pointed out that the object of the sentence 
between square brackets at the end of subparagraph (c) of this 
Article was to avoid certain components of armed forces being 
covered neither by the Agreement nor by the Protocol, as it would 
then be necessary to draft a third agreement later on. 

25. The French Representative agreed with the Chairman that, 
if the staff of subordinate integrated Headquarters or other inte- 
grated military bodies were not all covered by this Protocol, some 
staff would have no status. He therefore proposed that this Protocol 
should apply — at least in some of its sections — to all military bodies 
of an integrated character. It might be possible to introduce at the 
end of the Protocol a provision laying down that a specific number 
of its Articles applied to Allied military bodies. 

26. In conclusion, the Working Group : 

(9) Agreed that provisions would have to be inserted for this 
purpose at the end of the Protocol. 

27. The Chairman later substituted a drafting which was approved 
by the Working Group subject to the following amendments : The 
Article would end as follows : "operated with funds provided under 
an international budget." 

28. The French Representative, in order better to define Head- 
quarters, considered that reference should be made to establishment 
tables. He proposed the addition of the following: "the establishment 
of these Headquarters shall be laid down in an establishment table 
approved by the Council Deputies." 

29. The United States Representative considered that this might 
be outside the competence of the Council Deputies and that, in any 
case, this provision would entail useless and complicated administra- 
tive arrangements. 

30. The Chairman proposed that the Protocol should apply in 
principle to certain categories of civilian components which could be 
defined in each case. 

31. The Canadian Representative considered that, if the Protocol 
was to apply to all international troops, it would have to be entirely 
recast, and he suggested that the Protocol continue to confine itself to 
Headquarters proper. Several members of the Group endorsed this 
view. 

32. After a brief discussion, the Working Group : 

(10) Agreed that the definitions in the Protocol were not in- 



282 

tended to cover air training schools or any military estab- 
lishments other than military Headquarters operated with 
funds provided under an international budget. 

33. The Italian Representative asked if the word "international" 
was appropriate regardless of the size of SHAPE'S share in a 
possible budget. The SHAPE Representative stated that the budget 
of Supreme Headquarters included the budgets of all Headquarters 
subordinate to SHAPE. As an example, he mentioned decentralized 
commands such as those in Verona and Florence. 

34. After an exchange of views, the Working Group : 

(11) Agreed that these definitions should apply to all Head- 
quarters regardless of the share of SHAPE in the opera- 
tion of their budget. 

Article 2 

35. The Working Group : 

(12) Adopted the drafting proposed for this Article subject 
to certain amendments. 

(13) Agreed that the expression "on such territory" meant "on 
the territory of a State which is a Party to the Protocol 
and situated in the North Atlantic region," in accordance 
with the explanation given above in this same Article. 

36. The French Representative pointed out, with respect to 
France, that the Protocol would apply to territory outside Metro- 
politan France only insofar as the Agreement applied to such 
territories under its Article XX. 

Article 3 

37. A general discussion took place on the advisability of specify- 
ing whether or not civilian components could include nationals 
of the receiving State. This point was considered important for the 
application of Article VII of the Agreement. 

38. The Working Group: 

(14) Agreed that this Article should be interpreted as follows: 
SHAPE or the sending State were responsible for acts 
performed by their civilian components or their employees 
when the legal responsibility was that of SHAPE or the 
sending State under the law of the receiving State. 

39. The French Representative stated that he would agree that 
the categories of persons regarded as members of the "civilian 
component" should be defined by the Council Deputies. The 
"civilian component" would be composed of persons permanently 



283 

employed in certain categories to be decided by the Deputies. 
Custodial staff would not be included nor, generally speaking, any 
staff who might be recruited locally. 

40. The SHAPE Representative pointed out that all categories 
of personnel employed by SHAPE were on a list approved by the 
Budget Committee, but that the civilian personnel recruited locally 
(drivers, etc.) were not included in this list. 

41. In reply to an objection raised by the SHAPE Representative 
regarding the British canteen, the Chairman said he would prefer 
not to discuss the application of the Agreement to the canteen 
service, since his Government was at present studying the question 
of the application to canteens of the Agreement on the Status of 
the Armed Forces. 

42. Even if nationals of his own State were left out of account, 
the French Representative stated that his Government would not 
agree to extend the provisions of the Protocol to all members of 
the civilian component. He pointed out that when the Agreement 
was in course of preparation, certain personnel had been excluded 
from the definition of civilian component, and his Government 
could not here accept a more comprehensive formula. He considered 
that one of the two solutions proposed should be adopted: either 
the categories of personnel should be approved by the North Atlantic 
Council, or reference should be made to establishment lists approved 
by the Council. The first alternative would be preferable, for the 
second did not distinguish between specialists and non-specialist 
personnel. 

43. The Chairman proposed that the Protocol should be so 
worded as to apply to every member of a "civilian component" 
accompanying a force under the terms of the Agreement and em- 
ployed by a Headquarters, or to categories of personnel employed 
directly by the Headquarters which would be defined by the 
Council Deputies. 

Article 4 

44. The French Representative proposed that the word "crim- 
inelle" in subparagraph (a) of the French text should be replaced 
by the word "penale," Moreover, he thought that, in the event of 
difficulty in designating the sending State to which the individual 
belonged, SHAPE should be given a secondary responsibility. 
SHAPE did not wish to provide for a staff department to investi- 
gate the files of such cases, and an appeal against a SHAPE decision 
might come to nothing. 

45. The Working Group: 

(15) Agreed that a more satisfactory draft of paragraph (a) 



284 

should subsequently be considered, taking into account 
the comments of the French Representative. 

(16) Subsequently accepted the wording proposed by the Chair- 
man. 

Article 5 

46. The French Representative proposed that this Article should 
include mention of a photograph. This proposal was adopted. 

47. With respect to dependents, the SHAPE Representative 
pointed out that they would be in possession of their passport and 
a dependent's card issued by SHAPE. 

Article 8 

48. In accordance with a proposal by the Netherlands Rep- 
resentative, the Working Group: 

(17) Agreed that the following clause should be deleted from 
the beginning of the Article: "So far as is necessary for 
the fulfilment of its functions." 

Article 10 

49. The Belgian Representative said that he would prefer para- 
graph 2 of this Article to read as follows: "The Parties to this 
Protocol shall facilitate, insofar as practicable." 

50. The United States Representative thought, from his instruc- 
tions, that this restriction might make it impossible for him to 
accept the provision in question. 

51. The SHAPE Representative confirmed that, from SHAPE'S 
point of view, this new restriction would rob the text of all its 
substance, and he could give the assurance that the adjustments in- 
volved in this paragraph would be insignificant. He inquired 
whether there were any other provisions in the Protocol or in 
the Agreement which prevented SHAPE funds from being con- 
sidered as funds of the same nature as funds of the civilian 
Organization. 

52. Summing up, the Chairman pointed out that there were three 
possible solutions: 

(a) Adopt the Article as it appeared in the French draft; 

(b) Adopt the same Article amended in accordance with the 
proposal of the Belgian Representative; 

(c) The application of Article 8 of the Civil Status Agreement. 

53. The French Representative said that he could not agree to 
apply to SHAPE the text of Article 8 of the Agreement on the 
Status of NATO Civilian Staff. 



285 

54. The Netherlands Representative proposed that this Article 
should be redrafted to provide that the Parties to this Protocol 
should, so far as they could, give effect to any reasonable request 
by Supreme Headquarters for transfers of funds. The Chairman 
gave it as his opinion that the word "facilitate" did not require 
the Parties to do anything more than they found practicable having 
regard to all the circumstances. 

55. The Italian Representative referred to the reservations which 
he had previously made in the event of the transfer of funds to 
persons residing in Italy. The transfers should be made in cur- 
rency acceptable to the Italian Government. In addition, such 
transfers should always be made with due regard to Italian legisla- 
tion. 

56. The United States Representative considered that it was 
essential to ensure that national financial regulations did not have 
the effect of paralyzing the operations of military Headquarters. 

57. In conclusion to this discussion, the Working Group: 

(18) Provisionally agreed to retain the text as it stood. 

(19) Invited Governments to reconsider the text in question 
in the light of the above discussion. 

Former Article 11 of D-D (51) 300 (Revise) 

58. Returning to the question of immunities, the French Rep- 
resentative said that the French Government was submitting a 
new proposal, in the light of the restrictions which appeared to 
be necessary ; immunities would be restricted to those of the Supreme 
Commander, and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) would 
be applied to the Commanders-in-Chief directly subordinate to 
the Supreme Commander. He thought that it was reasonable to 
expect that the immunities accepted by one country would be 
equally acceptable to the others. 

59. The Italian Representative pointed out that immunities and 
facilities accorded in respect of the personal baggage of diplomatic 
personnel were accorded purely for reasons of courtesy; he could 
not approve a text which would here accord immunities which 
were greater than those accorded to diplomats. On the other hand, 
he entirely approved of according such immunities implicitly to 
the Commanders-in-Chief and the commanders directly subordinate 
to the Supreme Commander. 

60. The SHAPE Representative found the new French proposal 
quite satisfactory. He would like to extend it also to the Chief of 
Staff, General Gruenther. 

61. Speaking as the United Kingdom Representative, the Chair- 



286 

man stated that this involved a question of principle, and he did 
not know whether his Government would be prepared to accord 
these immunities to a new class of persons. He would ask for 
instructions on this point. 

62. The Canadian Representative said that his Government would 
not be prepared to table new legislative measures to this effect. 

63. A number of Representatives agreed with the Norwegian 
Representative that it would be preferable to deal with the question 
of these immunities in the bilateral agreements. 

64. The Belgian Representative had no objection to raise in con- 
nection with the privileges and immunities in question. 

65. The Working Group : 

(20) Recognized that it could not reach agreement on this point. 

(21) Agreed that this question should be submitted to the 
various Governments for closer consideration. 

IV. Discussion of the Military Postal Service. 

66. The Chairman reminded the members of the Working Group 
that, under United Kingdom law, only the Postmaster General 
could set up and operate a postal service. 

67. The French Representative inquired whether there was no 
United States or Canadian post office in Great Britain. 

68. The Chairman replied that there was in fact a United States 
military post office which had continued to operate since the last 
war, but it was an exceptional case. It appeared that the executive 
authorities had exceeded their powers in permitting this postal 
service to be established, and no additional exception could be made 
without introducing new legislation. 

69. The French Representative said that there were also some 
United States post offices in France which operated under an agree- 
ment concluded in the immediate postwar period. There was also 
a British military post office which was operating outside any 
agreement. For this reason the United Kingdom and France should 
each seek to resolve this irregular situation. A solution might be 
found in the form of integrated post offices attached to Head- 
quarters. It remained to be seen whether a practical formula could 
be found to provide for the operation of such post offices. 

70. Mr. Ridge, the United Kingdom technical expert, said that 
the idea of an integrated post office was quite new to him. Up 
to the present, military post offices had only operated in wartime 
and for each national force, in order to forward correspondence 
between the soldiers and their families at the national postal rates. 



287 

That was nothing more than a normal development arising out of 
wartime conditions. 

71. United Kingdom legislation was such that the establishment 
and operation of a post office remained a royal monopoly, and it 
would be very difficult to change this position in peacetime. For 
this reason he could not easily contemplate the possibility of a force 
establishing its own military post office, and it seemed to him almost 
impossible to conceive of a solution which would meet every 
requirement of all the different countries with each force operating 
its own separate post office. 

72. The idea of an integrated post office would enable the various 
countries to move away from their inflexible standpoint in this 
connection and to make mutual concessions on various points. But 
a way would have to be found to overcome the administrative 
difficulties raised by the variety of national regulations which 
such a post office would have to observe. 

73. This possibility raised two serious problems. The first was 
which stamps would be used, and the second, what kind of financial 
arrangements would have to be laid down in view of the different 
postage rates which would be granted to military personnel. 

74. At the close of this discussion, the Working Group: 

(22) Agreed that France should take appropriate measures 
to this effect in its bilateral agreement with SHAPE. 

(23) Noted that such measures could, where appropriate, be 
taken as a model for other bilateral agreements. 

75. The French Representative expressed the wish that this dis- 
cussion should be resumed at a future meeting. He still considered 
that the general provisions of this military postal service should be 
included in the Protocol. There were, in fact, only two possibilities : 
either the national military post office, or an integrated international 
post office. It appeared to him, from what the United Kingdom 
expert had said, that the former possibility had been rejected and 
consequently there remained the proposal put forward by the 
French Government. 

76. The Chairman added that the United Kingdom would consider 
the possibility of introducing new legislation to enable each force 
to set up its own postal service. He said that it would be possible 
to return to this question before approving the final text of the 
Protocol. 

77. Returning to this question at a later stage, the Chairman said 
that the Working Group did not seem to be prepared to bring 
this question before the Council Deputies. 

78. The French Representative pointed out that he had proposed 



288 

that consideration of the question should be continued, and that 
it should be examined from the technical point of view in order 
to explore any difficulties in the way of its realization. 

79. Since the majority of Representatives of the Working Group 
did not think it advisable to consider setting up another technical 
committee to examine this question, the Chairman suggested that 
the French Government should submit a draft proposal. In his 
opinion, this would be the best procedure. 

80. The French Representative remarked that the Working Group 
had recognized that it would be difficult to operate national post 
offices as effectively as integrated post offices. 

81. In conclusion to this discussion, the Working Group: 

(24) Agreed that the difficulties encountered in this connection 
should be mentioned in the report to the Council Deputies. 

(25) Invited the French Delegation to raise this question when 
the Protocol came up for consideration by the Council 
Deputies. 

MS-R(52) 4 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
23 January 1952 

/. Consideration of Draft Agreement betiveen the French Govern- 
ment and SHAPE. 1 

1. The Chairman thought that it would be advisable to run 
through the document as a whole to see whether the reference to 
SHAPE also applied to Allied Headquarters. 

2. The United States Representative said that it would be 
clearer, when reference was made to France, to know whether the 
reference also applied to French North Africa or only to Metro- 
politan France. 

3. The French Representative pointed out that in virtue of 
Article XX of the Agreement, only Metropolitan France was con- 
cerned. 

Article 1 

4. The Chairman suggested adding after the word "established" 
in (b) and [after the word] "provide" in (d) the words "in France 
or on French territory." 



i Reference: D-D (51) 301 (R) (3 January 1952). 



289 

Article 2 

5. The Chairman suggested deleting the word "its" in the second 
line, which would thus read "SHAPE and subordinate Head- 
quarters." 

Article 3 

6. Some members of the Group asked why it was laid down in 
the second sentence of this Article that the French Government 
must give prior approval to any alterations in the strength of com- 
plete units. They thought that this was stretching rather far the 
prerogatives of the receiving State. 

7. In reply, the French Representative explained that this sentence 
was the result of a compromise with SHAPE. He quoted as an 
example a small town where a HQ was going to be set up. It was 
clear that if the strength of such a HQ was to be doubled, the 
French Government might have good reasons to object to such an 
increase in strength in a town where no provision was made for it. 
He pointed out that it was, above all, alterations in the direction 
of increases that mattered. 

8. The Working Group: 

(1) Agreed to interpret this Article as covering substantial 
increases in the strength of HQ, which should not be 
decided on without prior approval of the French Govern- 
ment. 

Article 5 

9. Some members of the Group pointed out that SHAPE should 
be able to put out tenders in connection with its construction work 
to firms outside France, which might prove more economical. 

10. The Chairman proposed the addition of a new sentence to 
the effect that the provisions of this Article Avere without prejudice 
to the right to put out tenders for construction work or the provision 
of services connected with such work to firms outside France 
belonging to countries members of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. 

11. The United States Representative suggested modifying the 
opening sentence of Article 5 as follows: "At the request of 
SHAPE, the requirements of Allied Headquarters . . ." 

12. The French Representative pointed out that Article 5 had 
been drafted after careful examination by the French services 
and by SHAPE. He thought it would be difficult to make any 
modification to it. 

13. The SHAPE Representative said that SHAPE did not wish 



290 

this provision to be compulsory. At the same time, he felt that 
the Agreement had operated satisfactorily so far, thanks to the 
good will displayed on both sides. Under the terms of the Agree- 
ment, the French Government was responsible for all construction 
work and employed its own firms. However, SHAPE was able, by 
agreement with the French Government, to undertake certain con- 
struction work and alterations of minor importance. 

14. The French Representative stressed the fact that his Govern- 
ment did not have all the advantages in this Agreement. It had 
accepted responsibility for the construction w T ork and contracts 
because SHAPE preferred that it should be the French Government 
rather than itself which should act in case of disputes, which were 
settled in France by administrative courts. 

15. He noted the wish expressed and would inform his Govern- 
ment of it, but he reminded the Group that the Article was part 
of an Agreement between the French Government and SHAPE 
and should be worked out between the two parties primarily con- 
cerned. 

16. The Working Group: 

(2) Agreed to include in its report to the Council Deputies a 
sentence indicating that the provisions of Article 5 w r ould 
be examined again in the light of the discussion in the 
Council Deputies on the question of tenders being put 
out to firms of any NATO country in respect of con- 
struction work financed by international budgets. 

17. The Canadian Representative suggested that in the first 
sentence of paragraph 3 of Article 5 the words "shall be" should be 
replaced by the words "may be," which would give the paragraph 
a less compulsory character. 

18. The French Representative regretted that this was not pos- 
sible. In fact, it was the French Government which contracted in 
the name of SHAPE, and it was the French Government which 
would have to deal with disputes. 

19. The Italian Representative said that it w r ould be wise to decide 
in advance what would be compulsory under this Article, since 
expenditure in connection with alterations to real estate might 
involve substantial sums, and it w r ould be better to know the posi- 
tion in advance. 

Article 6 

20. The United States Representative suggested the following 
addition to Article 6: "The right of acquisition in all cases, except 
in so far as real property is concerned, is not subject to prior 
agreement by the French Government." 



291 

21. The French Representative noted this addition, which he 
thought might prove acceptable. 

22. Some members of the Group suggested the following wording : 
"The right of acquisition in respect of real property provided in 
Article 6 of the Protocol shall be subject, in each individual case, to 
the prior agreement of the French Government." 

Article 9 

23. The United States Representative thought that it would be 
useful to know what was meant by the word "administrative" in the 
phrase "administrative civilian staff" at the end of the first para- 
graph of Article 9. He feared that the word was too restrictive. 

24. The French Representative said that his Government would 
not like the requirements of SHAPE to give rise to a recruitment by 
SHAPE of unskilled, ordinary labor. SHAPE would therefore 
be entitled to recruit directly only persons who could not be found 
on the spot. 

25. The SHAPE Representative said that the staff covered by the 
Article was the office staff listed in Chapter I of the Budget, as 
opposed to labor employed in manual work covered in Chapter II of 
the Budget, which would only be recruited through the local employ- 
ment office. He added that any modification might upset the balance 
in SHAPE'S establishment. 

26. The French Representative suggested using the words "civilian 
component" instead of "administrative staff." 

Article 10 

27. In reply to an observation by the United States Representative, 
the French Representative pointed out that Article 10 should read 
"arising out of the application of Articles 6 and 8 above." 

Article 12 

28. The SHAPE Representative pointed out that, if the former 
Article 12 of the Protocol 2 was deleted, it would be necessary to 
include in the bilateral Agreement an Article covering this question. 

29. The French Representative thought that it would be necessary 
to include an Article authorizing SHAPE to open an Allied Military 
Post Office. 



2 Article 12 of D-D (51) 300 (R) (3 January 1951) 



292 

Article 13 

30. The Canadian Representative thought that it would be wise to 
include the provisions relating to the installation and use of military 
radio and radar stations (the first two paragraphs of Article 13) in 
the general Protocol. The French Representative saw no objection to 
this view, with which SHAPE was also in agreement. 

31. The Chairman, as United Kingdom Representative, doubted 
whether his Government was ready to agree to the inclusion of these 
provisions in the Protocol. He would obtain instructions on this 
point. 

32. The United States Representative suggested replacing the 
words "in peacetime" by the words "in the normal conditions." 

Article 14 

33. The SHAPE Representative reserved his position on this Arti- 
cle. The Chairman suggested that the question be raised again by the 
SHAPE Representative when the draft Agreement was submitted to 
the Council Deputies. 

Article 15 

34. The United States Representative thought that this Article 
should be deleted, in view of the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 
11 of the Agreement. The Chairman suggested that the point be left 
for the French Government and SHAPE to consider. 

35. The SHAPE Representative pointed out that paragraph 4 of 
Article 11 of the Agreement provided "in cases where such use is 
permitted by the receiving State." In his opinion, the purpose of 
Article 15 was to give effect to this provision. 

Article 16 

36. The French Representative said that agreement had not yet 
been reached between France and SHAPE as to paragraphs (a) and 
(c) of this Article. 

37. The SHAPE Representative pointed out that this payment by 
SHAPE of a 5% tax on salaries was equivalent to a charge by the 
French Government on the international budget as a whole. The 
same remark applied to paragraph (c). 

38. The French Representative replied that this was a tax peculiar 
to France. Under French law, a tax had to be paid on salaries, since 
it was easy to collect, by all employers having their head office in 
France. It was not a question of a tax imposed on SHAPE, but of a 
tax levied on all salaries paid by SHAPE. Employers who did not 



293 

have their head office in France paid a personal tax. If SHAPE did 
not pay these taxes, they would be demanded of the staff of SHAPE, 
perhaps with a certain increase, as provided by the Act. He agreed 
that it was difficult to draft a text in this connection which was in 
conformity with French legislation, but French legislation must be 
respected. He suggested adding the following addition to Article 16 
to the effect that if the 5% payment demanded of employers was not 
paid, the tax in question would have to be paid by the individuals 
concerned. 

39. The Chairman said that, to the extent that staffs not covered by 
Article 10 was concerned, he had no objection. 

40. The United States Representative said that he could not accept 
Article 16, which did not seem practicable to him. 

Article 17 

41. The Canadian Representative thought it would be wise to 
insert the words "by France" after the word "ratification." 

42. The Chairman thought that a provision would have to be 
drafted providing for denunciation of the Agreement. 

//. Consideration of the Working Groups Report to the Council 
Deputies on Military Status 3 and Future Procedure. 

Draft Agreement between France and SHAPE 4 

43. The Chairman suggested that the report to the Council Depu- 
ties should refer to the fact that the Working Group had made a 
number of observations during its examination of the draft Agree- 
ment between the French Government and SHAPE, and that the 
Council Deputies should be requested to invite the French Govern- 
ment and SHAPE to examine the Agreement again in the light of 
those observations. The bilateral Agreement would not therefore be 
concluded until this revision had taken place. 

44. The Norwegian Representative thought that it was important 
for the Agreement to be concluded as soon as possible, without await- 
ing final approval by the Council Deputies. A bilateral Agreement 
of this kind would be very valuable as a precedent for other NATO 
countries. 

45. The French Representative pointed out that the role of the 
Working Group should be limited to making comments, without pre- 

3MS-D(52) 4 (21 January 1952), which has been omitted since it is sub- 
stantially the same as the first part of D-D(52) 24 (24 January 1952). 
4 D-D (51 ) 301 (R) (3 January 1952). 



294 

senting recommendations. The problems involved differed widely 
from one country to another. He gave as an example the provisions 
of Article 5 of the bilateral Agreement. 

46. The Chairman thought that it was necessary to protect the 
interests of SHAPE, which was an international body operating in 
accordance with principles laid down by the North Atlantic Council 
or its subordinate agencies. He did not think it necessary to ask the 
Council Deputies to approve the document, but if SHAPE was not 
satisfied on any points it was entitled to ask that such points be 
examined by the Council Deputies or their Working Groups. Finally, 
he thought that the report should request the French Government 
and SHAPE to communicate the revised text to the Council Depu- 
ties for information. 

47. The Working Group : 

(3) Agreed on the following procedure: Bilateral Agreements 
should be sent to the Council Deputies, who would limit 
themselves to taking note of them unless they had any com- 
ments to make. 

(4) Agreed to include in the report the observations made by 
certain members of the Group with regard to Articles 15 
and 16. 5 

Revised Draft Protocol 6 

48. The Working Group : 

(5) Agreed to recommend to the Council Deputies to refer the 
above text to member Governments, requesting them to sub- 
mit their observations within the following three weeks. 

(6) Agreed to meet again in five weeks' time to re-examine the 
revised Protocol, together with any observations made by 
member Governments. 

D-R(52) 9(F) 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 30 Jan- 
uary 1952 



IV. Agreement on the Status of NATO Forces. 



5 The report referred to is contained in D-D (52) 24 (24 January 1952) 
6D-D(52) 27 (24 January 1952). 



295 

(ii) Resolution on Implementation of Article VIII. 

37. There had been circulated for adoption by the Council Deputies 
a draft Resolution * setting forth certain administrative understand- 
ings concerning the application of Article VIII of the Agreement. 

38. The Secretary of the Working Group pointed out that these 
were merely administrative arrangements which did not modify the 
Agreement itself. It was desirable that the Resolution should be 
adopted as soon as possible in order to facilitate the implementation 
of Article VIII in advance of ratification. 

39. The Chairman, in his capacity as United States Deputy, re- 
served the position of the United States Government on a uniform 
procedure for implementing Article VIII. Legislation to implement 
Article VIII would be adopted in the United States when the treaty 
was ratified, and his Government would act in conformity with this 
legislation. 

40. The United Kingdom Deputy pointed out that in some respects 
Article VIII was one of the most important articles of the Agree- 
ment. It was desirable to agree on a procedure soon in order to avoid 
hardship to individual claimants. 

41. The countries prepared to adopt the Resolution were : Belgium, 
Canada, France, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The 
countries which had not yet instructed their delegations were : Den- 
mark, Iceland, Italy and the Netherlands. 

42. The Chairman pointed out that this question had been under 
consideration for some time, and he hoped that those members who 
had not yet received instructions would shortly be able to give their 
Governments' views. 



D-R(52) 12 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Council Deputies, 6 Feb- 
ruary 1952 



IV. Implementation of Article VIII of the Forces Agreement. 1 * 

9. Speaking as United States Deputy, the Chairman stated that his 
Government agreed in principle that a uniform procedure for imple- 

i D-D (52) 26 (23 January 1952). 

ia Previous reference: D-R(52) 9(F), par. 37-42 (30 January 1952); See 
D-D (52) 26 (23 January 1952). 



296 

menting Article VIII was desirable, but it could not approve the 
Resolution until legislation, which Avould be enacted when the treaty 
was ratified, had become law. 

10. The Council Deputies : 

Agreed to defer discussion until the delegations which were 
still uninstructed had received their instructions. 



MS-R(52) 5 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
24, 25 and 26 March 1952 



777. Consideration of Draft Protocol on the Status of Allied Head- 
quarters. 1 

8. The Working Group examined the text of the draft Protocol, 
together with a number of amendments proposed by the various 
delegations. 2 In the course of discussion the following points were 
raised. 

9. It was agreed that the words "North Atlantic Treaty area" in 
the Preamble and in Article 2 should be understood as covering the 
area defined in Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, as amended 
by the Protocol on the Accession of Greece and Turkey. 

Article 1 

10. The Working Group approved the text of Article 1, with some 
amendments. 

11. The Chairman, speaking as the United Kingdom Representa- 
tive, said that his Government's understanding was that there was no 
intention that the definitions in this Article should cover the Euro- 
pean Defense Community or any EDC Headquarters. This under- 
standing was confirmed by the other members of the Working Group. 



i Reference: D-D (52) 27 (24 January 1952). 

2 For comments and amendments submitted by various delegations and by 
SHAPE, see MS-D(52) 5 (14 March 1952). 



297 

Article 3 

12. M. Le Bigot (SHAPE) said that he wished to reserve the posi- 
tion of SHAPE regarding subparagraph (b) of Article 3. The defi- 
nition of "civilian component" in this subparagraph meant that after 
the transfer of NATO to Paris there would be a serious discrepancy 
in the position of civilian personnel in the employ of NATO and 
civilian personnel employed directly by Allied Headquarters. 
SHAPE could not accept such a discrepancy. 

13. The Working Group felt that such a distinction was inevitable, 
since the original Agreement on the Status of Forces also limited the 
definition of "civilian component'' ; the Protocol could only extend 
the application of this Agreement and not modify it. 

It therefore adopted, with some amendments, the text proposed by 
the United States for this subparagraph. 

Article 4(a) 

14. The French Representative withdrew the proposed French 
amendment on the understanding that it was generally accepted by 
the Working Group that in the case of employees of Allied Head- 
quarters who were not employees of the armed forces of a Party to 
the Agreement, the receiving State had jurisdiction with regard to all 
offenses committed on its territory which were covered by its legisla- 
tion. It was agreed that the phrase "not members of the armed 
forces of a Party to the Agreement" meant not members of national 
forces or their civilian components and that the French position 
applied to civilians directly employed by an Allied Headquarters 
and not to those civilians who make up civilian components of na- 
tional forces which might be attached to such Headquarters. 

Article 4(d) 

15. The Canadian Representative raised the question of the recon- 
ciliation of this subparagraph with paragraphs 2(b) and 8 of Article 
VIII of the Agreement. It was agreed that a proviso be inserted to 
the effect that Allied Headquarters, as well as the original sending 
State, should have a voice in the appointment of the arbitrator, and 
that the Chairman should draft such a clause for consideration by the 
Working Group at a later meeting. 

Article 5 

16. The Working Group agreed on the advisability of communicat- 
ing to the receiving State details of the form of identity cards issued 



298 

by the Allied Headquarters and thought that the Allied Headquarters 
in question should send a specimen of the identity card to the authori- 
ties of the receiving State. 

Article 6 

17. The Working Group accepted an amendment proposed by the 
United States Delegation, making the sense of the Article permissive. 
As regards protection of the property and personnel of Allied Head- 
quarters, the understanding of the Working Group was that the pro- 
visions of paragraph 11 of Article VII of the Agreement on the 
Status of Forces applied to Allied Headquarters. 

Article 7, par. 1 

18. The French Representative agreed to withdraw the French 
amendment, in view of the adoption of the United States redraft of 
Article 3(b). 

19. Commander Hare (SHAPE) said that he must reserve 
SHAPE's position regarding this paragraph. Under its provisions, 
members of a civilian component who were nationals of the receiving 
State would be liable to taxation by the receiving State. SHAPE 
would have difficulty in accepting this discrepancy of two categories 
of civilian personnel doing exactly the same work. 

20. The Canadian, Netherlands and United States Representatives 
thought that it would be extremely difficult for their respective 
Parliaments to agree to exemption of their nationals from taxation 
in their own countries. 

21. Commander Hare had two suggestions to make as to methods 
of avoiding the discrepancy : 

(a) Members of a civilian component might be excluded from 
the privilege of exemption from taxation, except insofar as 
this privilege was written into their terms of contract ; 

(b) All civilian personnel might be considered as being employed 
directly by NATO, the necessary personnel being then as- 
signed to work at Allied Headquarters. 

He added that, in SHAPE's view, the probable result of the lia- 
bility to taxation of civilian components would be a demand for an 
increase in the SHAPE international budget. 

22. The Working Group accepted the French proposal to add a 
new subparagraph (2) to Article 7. 



299 



Article 8 (10) 3 



23. The Chairman felt that the addition proposed by France, "so 
far as necessary for the fulfilment of its task," might give rise to 
difficulties. In view of the need for giving Supreme Headquarters 
the capacity to conclude contracts with third parties, and for the pro- 
tection of these third parties, he thought that these words should be 
omitted. 

24. The Italian, Netherlands, Norwegian and United States Rep- 
resentatives also thought it preferable to omit these words. 

25. The French Representative agreed to accept the original text, 
but wished it to be placed on record that the French Government's 
understanding was that this Article only applied insofar as the 
exercise of such capacity by Supreme Headquarters was necessary 
for the fulfilment of its task. 

26. The United States Representative said that his Government 
felt that Supreme Headquarters could not be limited by the 
receiving State in the exercise of functions which it considered 
necessary. He therefore wished to omit the second sentence of 
Article 8. However, in view of the general feeling of the Working 
Group, he agreed to accept the inclusion of this sentence subject to 
reference to his Government. 

27. It was the understanding of the Working Group that a 
subordinate Allied Headquarters could act for a Supreme Head- 
quarters under this Article. 

Article 9(11) 

28. The Working Group approved an addition to paragraph 2 
of this Article on the lines of the Netherlands proposal. 

Article 10(12), par. 2 

29. The Chairman noted that a number of amendments had been 
proposed with a view to clarifying the interpretation of the words 
"shall facilitate." The Italian and Netherlands Representatives in 
particular wished to make it clear that their Governments could 
accept no obligation to transfer funds under this Article. 

30. M. Le Bigot (SHAPE) said that SHAPE'S view was that 
there should be no difference between the facilities agreed for civil 



3 The number in parentheses here, as in the headings which follow, refers to 
the renumbering of these Articles" in MS-D(52) 6 (27 March 1952). The text 
under consideration, however, is that contained in D-D (52) 27 (24 January 
1952). 



300 

and military international budgets. SHAPE was reluctant to accept 
a limitation of its freedom of operation. He pointed out that the 
addition to the paragraph proposed by the United States, "when 
necessary to meet the requirements of an Allied Headquarters," 
already constituted a safeguard regarding such transfers. He 
agreed that no difficulties had arisen so far in practice; but he 
wished to safeguard the position of Allied Headquarters in the 
future. 

31. After further discussion, the Italian Representative agreed 
to withdraw the Italian proposal for the addition of a new para- 
graph (3), on condition that it be placed on record that the Italian 
Government's understanding of paragraph 2 was as follows: 

Such undertaking to facilitate the transfer or conversion of 
Supreme Headquarters funds does not imply any strict obliga- 
tion for the Governments to perform such transfer or conversion, 
but only to facilitate these operations. 

The Italian Government would, however, do its best to assist Allied 
Headquarters in the matter of such transfers. The Working Group 
generally confirmed this interpretation. 

32. The SHAPE Representative stated that in his view the 
insertion in the Summary Record of the interpretation placed by 
the Italian Government on paragraph 2 of Article 10 greatly 
reduced the value of this Article. 

33. The United States Representative said that he could accept 
the Italian interpretation of paragraph 2, if the following United 
States amendment to paragraph 2 was accepted also: "Each 
Party . . . the conversion of that Party's currency." 

34. The general feeling of the Working Group was that the 
original text, "The Parties . . . any currency," was preferable. 

35. The United States Representative agreed to refer the matter 
again to his Government, and asked that the other members of the 
Working Group, on their side, reconsider it. In view, however, 
of the text preferred by the majority of the Working Group, he 
wished to make the following reservations on behalf of his Govern- 
ment: 

(a) The United States Government did not see in the wording 
of Article 10 any obligation to effect the conversion of 
any currency into the currency of a country which was 
not a member of the EPU. 

(b) The United States Government could not accept any obliga- 
tion under this Article to purchase European currency 
for dollars. The United States contributions would in 



301 

substantial part be made from counterpart funds or other 
local currency held by or available to the United States. 

36. The Canadian Representative asked whether the SHAPE 
Representative could give an assurance that SHAPE had no inten- 
tion of converting into the currency of any country an amount 
superior to its original contribution. 

37. The SHAPE Representative said that he could give this as- 
surance as far as conversion into dollars was concerned. He added 
an assurance that SHAPE would not effect any conversions which 
were not essential for the operation of Allied Headquarters; 
SHAPE'S only concern was the proper functioning of the Head- 
quarters. 

Article 12 (14) 

38. The Working Group examined a draft put forward by the 
United States Representative of an additional paragraph to be in- 
cluded under Article 12, providing for the extension of the Protocol 
to cover personnel of the EDC forces who might be attached to Allied 
Headquarters in the near future. 

39. After some discussion, the Working Group agreed to insert this 
paragraph provisionally in the draft Protocol for consideration by 
Governments. It was understood that, if and when the EDC came 
into existence, new provisions would be necessary to determine the 
possible application of the Agreement on the Status of Forces to 
cover EDC forces. 

Proposed New Article 
(Relief of Allied Headquarters from Taxes) 

40. The United States Representative said that his Government 
attached the greatest importance to the inclusion of the provisions of 
this new Article in the Protocol. He explained that all United States 
contributions to international funds were based on the Mutual 
Security Act which provided that none of the funds so contributed 
be applied to the payment of taxes. It was a condition of United 
States acceptance of the Protocol in any form that it should include 
a statement of agreement on the general principle that Allied Head- 
quarters be relieved from taxes. 

41. In reply to a question from the Canadian Representative, the 
United States Representative stated that his Government was taking 
steps to relieve SACLANT from taxation under United States law. 

42. The French Representative said that his Government was not 
very favorable to the insertion of an undertaking of such a general 
nature in the Protocol. It was prepared to accept the inclusion of an 



302 

Article on the lines of Article 10 of the Agreement on the Status of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, National Representatives 
and International Staff, as suggested by SHAPE in document 
D-D (52) 2. 

43. The Norwegian Representative said that he had no definite 
instructions on this matter. His Government did not question the 
soundness of the principle, but certain technical difficulties were 
involved. 

44. The Canadian Representative hoped that his Government could 
accept the principle. He added that if an Allied Headquarters were 
set up in Canada, the Canadian Government would be faced with 
the problem of getting federal, provincial and municipal taxes 
waived. This, of course, would raise some considerable legislative 
issues. 

45. Lt. Colonel Rimbout (SHAPE) said that SHAPE'S view was 
that Allied Headquarters should not be subject to a regime less favor- 
able than that applied to the armed forces of any Party to the North 
Atlantic Treaty. He pointed out that SHAPE was on the point of 
embarking on considerable expenditure for construction purposes, the 
taxes on which amounted to about one billion French francs. It was 
important therefore that a solution should be reached rapidly, and 
that any agreement reached should be retroactive. 

46. After further discussion, the Working Group agreed that a 
text on the lines proposed by the United States Representative, em- 
bodying statement of the general principle, be inserted provisionally 
in the draft Protocol as a new Article 8 for reference to Govern- 
ments. It was agreed that a definition of the term "taxes," in this 
connection, should also be included. 

47. The French Representative said that he must reserve his posi- 
tion. His Government would prefer to include a paragraph on the 
lines of Article 10 of the Agreement on Civilian Status. However, in 
view of the general feeling of the Working Group, he was prepared 
to agree to provisional inclusion of the text proposed by the United 
States Representative for submission to Governments. 

48. With regard to paragraph (a) of the original United States 
proposal, the understanding of the Working Group was that, for the 
purpose of paragraph 4 of Article XI of the Agreement on the Status 
of Forces, Allied Headquarters should be considered as the sending 
State. It was agreed that a clause be inserted to cover this point. On 
this understanding, the United States Representative agreed that the 
proposed paragraph (a) be omitted. 

49. The Working Group felt that paragraph (b) of the original 
United States proposal was unnecessary, since it was covered by the 



303 

statement of the general principle. On this understanding, the United 
States Representative agreed, subject to reference to his Government, 
that paragraph (b) be omitted. 

Disposal of Assets Financed out of 
Allied Headquarters Budgets 

50. The Working Group then discussed the proposal of the United 
States Delegation for the inclusion in the Protocol of a provision on 
the lines of the Council Deputies' Resolution 4 regarding disposal of 
assets financed out of Allied Headquarters budgets. 

51. The United States Representative explained that his Govern- 
ment wished to include this provision in the Protocol in order to give 
it treaty force; he thought that the general principle should be ap- 
plied automatically to all Headquarters and not renegotiated in each 
case. 

52. The French Representative also thought it desirable that this 
provision should have treaty force; the Resolution of the Council 
Deputies was satisfactory as the statement of a principle, but diffi- 
culties might arise in application unless it was written into an inter- 
national treaty. 

53. The Norwegian Representative thought that his Government 
would have no objection to its inclusion in the Protocol. 

54. The Italian Representative said his Government had had some 
doubts about the formula adopted by the Council Deputies. He could 
agree to provisional inclusion, but must refer to his Government for 
definite instructions. 

55. The Working Group agreed to include provisionally in the 
draft Protocol a new Article 9 on the lines of the Council Deputies' 
Resolution. 

Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities 

56. The Working Group again considered the United States pro- 
posal to include provisions for the granting of diplomatic privileges 
and immunities to Supreme Commanders and certain other officers of 
Allied Headquarters. 

57. The Chairman said that the United Kingdom Government felt 
strongly that the inclusion of such a provision was undesirable. It 
would be extremely difficult to obtain from the United Kingdom 
Parliament approval of a Protocol containing provisions for the ex- 
tension of diplomatic privileges and immunities to a further class of 
persons. 



4D-D(51) 217(R) 



304 

58. The Canadian Kepresentative said that similar difficulties 
would arise in his country. 

59. The French and Italian Kepresentatives said that their Govern- 
ments were in favor of granting certain privileges to a very limited 
number of persons; the categories would have to be very precisely 
defined. 

60. The Norwegian Representative thought that the Supreme Com- 
mander of Allied Headquarters in Norway already had certain im- 
munities. In view of the difficulty in defining categories of persons 
to whom such provisions should apply, he thought it preferable not 
to include them in the Protocol. 

61. The United States Representative said that he would report to 
his Government that the position of the various Governments was 
unchanged. 

Military Post Offices 

62. The Working Group considered a United States proposal for 
the inclusion of a paragraph regarding the establishment of military 
postal services for the use of Allied Headquarters. 

63. The French Representative said that he could not accept the 
formula proposed by the United States. His Government had pro- 
posed negotiation of an international agreement to cover this question 
and thought that in the meantime it should be dealt with by bilateral 
negotiation. 

64. Several other members of the Working Group agreed that this 
was a matter for bilateral negotiation. 

65. The Working Group agreed to consider the question further at 
its next meeting. 



MS-R(52) 6 

Summary Record of the Meetings of the Working Group on 
Status, 2 and 3 May 1952 

/. Consideration of Draft Protocol on the Status of Allied Head- 
quarters. 1 

1. The Working Group considered the draft of the Protocol and 
approved the text of the Preamble and of Articles 1 to 6 and 9 to 16, 
with some drafting amendments. Points raised in the course of dis- 
cussion are recorded below. 



i Reference: MS-D(52) 6 (27 March 1952). 



305 



Article 3, (b) 



2. It was the understanding of the Working Group that the term 
"civilian component" should not include employees who were na- 
tionals of the receiving State. It was also the understanding of the 
Working Group that the provisions of the Protocol would apply to 
personnel covered by the Protocol, also when on duty in member 
countries other than where their Headquarters is located. 

Article 4 

3. In connection with the preamble to Article 4, it was the under- 
standing of the Working Group that for the purpose of Article IV of 
the Agreement on the Status of Forces, an Allied Headquarters 
should be considered as a subdivision of Supreme Headquarters. 

4. The Working Group agreed on the insertion of a new Article 2 
defining the application to Allied Headquarters of paragraphs 1, 2, 
3 and 5 of Article VIII of the Agreement on the Status of Forces. 

5. The majority of the Working Group agreed on the insertion of 
a new Article 3 defining the application of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 8 of 
Article IX and paragraph 4 of Article XI of the Agreement. The 
Norwegian Representative, however, wished to reserve his position 
for the moment. 

Article 7 (9) 4 

6. The Working Group considered a redraft of this Article and 
agreed provisionally on the text of paragraph 1. 

Article 7 (9), par. 2 

7. Several members of the Working Group expressed the view that 
the inclusion in the Protocol of a provision as envisaged under para- 
graph 2 would be likely to cause difficulty in the acceptance of the 
Protocol by their national Governments. It was agreed, however, 
that the members of the Working Group should submit to their 
Governments the new draft of this paragraph which is based on 
Article 19 of the Civilian Status Agreement. 






2 Article 7, MS-D(52) 6(R) (5 May 1952). 

3 Article 8, MS-D(52) 6(R) (5 May 1952). 

4 The number in parentheses here, as in the headings which follow, refers to 
the renumbering of these Articles in MS-D(52) 6(R) (5 May 1952), due to the 
insertion of the two new Articles referred to in par. 4-5, supra. The text under 
consideration, however, remains that of MS-D(52) 6 (27 March 1952). 



306 



Article 8 (10) 



8. The French and United States Delegations tabled the interpre- 
tations of their respective Governments with regard to Article 10 as 
follows : 

French Interpretation 

(a) This Article refers to expenditure by an Allied Headquarters 
in the interest of common defense from funds under its in- 
ternational budget. 

(b) "So far as practicable" means so far as the legislation of the 
receiving State allows. 

(a) "So far as practicable" means within the framework of the 
law in each host country. Since in this framework the 
United States has obtained the necessary relief, it is as- 
sumed that Headquarters will obtain similar relief. 

(b) The language of the Article is intended to include, but not 
necessarily be limited to 

(i) relief from taxes on income and property of a Head- 
quarters, and 
(ii) relief from taxes on expenditures of its income by and on 
behalf of a Headquarters in respect of its establishment, 
construction, maintenance and operation. 
The United States Representative added that his Government was 
taking measures to make such relief as was envisaged in the United 
States interpretation applicable to SACLANT. 

9. Other members of the Working Group felt it necessary to re- 
serve their position with regard to these interpretations, pending con- 
sultation with their Governments. The following comments were 
made. 

10. The French Representative stated that 

(a) with regard to paragraph (a) of the United States interpre- 
tation, his Government was in agreement. 

(b) with regard to paragraph (b), the French Government could 
not accept this interpretation. Its view was that Article 10 
of the Protocol was a statement of principle, and that spe- 
cific points such as those mentioned in the United States 
interpretation were a matter for negotiation between Allied 
Headquarters and the receiving State. The French Govern- 
ment could not accept in advance an interpretation which 
might prejudice these negotiations. 

11. The Chairman, speaking as the United Kingdom Representa- 
tive, said that with regard to paragraph (a) of the United States 
interpretation, and paragraph (b) of the French interpretation, the 






307 

United Kingdom understanding was that the words "so far as prac- 
ticable" meant that the receiving State would not be required to go 
further than was permitted under already existing legislation, but 
that within these limits account must also be taken of what was 
practicable. 

12. The Canadian Representative said that his Government had 
been in negotiation with the French Government regarding the estab- 
lishment of bases and installations in France; it had been agreed that 
Canada should receive treatment in this respect no less favorable than 
that accorded to any other country. The Canadian Government as- 
sumed that no less favorable treatment would be accorded to SHAPE. 

13. The SHAPE Representative said that SHAPE hoped to obtain 
from the receiving State no less favorable treatment than that ac- 
corded under the arrangement between the United States and French 
Governments, or under any future arrangements which might be 
made on more favorable terms. He stressed once more the urgency of 
reaching a decision on this question. 

Article 9 (11), par. (a) 

14. The Chairman, speaking as the United Kingdom Representa- 
tive, proposed the insertion of the words "agreed between the receiv- 
ing State and the Allied Headquarters," in order to give the receiving 
State some measure of control to ensure that local regulations were 
not infringed, and in particular to allow it to make arrangements to 
collect taxes and duties which would fall due in cases where goods or 
property had been imported or used by Allied Headquarters and sub- 
sequently disposed of to a third party. 

In the light of the views expressed by the Working Group in the 
ensuing discussion, however, the Chairman agreed to withdraw this 
proposal, on the general understanding that these considerations 
would be taken into account by the Council when dealing with cases 
of this kind. 

Article 9 (11), par. (b) 

15. The Working Group agreed generally that paragraph (b) 
should refer only to "fixed installations" and not to movable prop- 
erty, such as vehicles, prefabricated buildings and equipment which 
was movable. 

16. With regard to the words, "any increase or less in the value of 
the property . . . shall be determined by the North Atlantic Council," 
it was the understanding of the Working Group that the law of the 
receiving State would be taken into account in determining the in- 
crease or loss. 



308 



Article 11 (13), par. 1 



17. It was the understanding of the Working Group that the words 
"subject to the provisions of Article VIII of the Agreement" were 
included to ensure that nothing in Article 13 of the Protocol might 
prejudice the provisions of Article VIII of the Agreement. In this 
connection, it was pointed out that Article VIII was intended to 
apply to claims arising out of torts, while Article 13 was intended to 
deal with contractual claims. 

It was the understanding of the Working Group that the phrase 
beginning "except for . . ." created no right of seizure not provided 
in the Agreement, and that the intention of the phrase was generally 
to provide that Allied Headquarters should be treated exactly as a 
sending State in these questions. 

Article 15 (17) 

18. It was the general opinion that where the term "Contracting 
Party" in the Agreement on the Status of Forces meant the sending 
State, it should be interpreted as applying also to Allied Head- 
quarters. 

19. The Working Group : 

(1) Agreed to recommend to the Council, when submitting its 
report, that on signature of the Protocol, the Council should 
invite all Parties to give the fullest possible effect to its pro- 
visions pending ratification. 

Additional Privileges and Immunities 

20. The United States Representative said that his Government 
accepted with regret the deletion from the Protocol of the provision 
for the granting of certain additional personal privileges and im- 
munities to certain senior officers of Allied Headquarters. The United 
States Government wished to put on record its view that there was a 
practical analogy between the needs of the highest Allied Com- 
mander and those recognized by the Civilian Status Agreement. 

Military Post Office Privileges 

21. The United States Representative said that his Government 
still held the view that some provision should be included in the 
Protocol to cover this point. 

22. The members of the Working Group agreed to submit their 
Governments' comments on the revised text of the Protocol to the 
Secretariat. If necessary, a further meeting would be called for 
26 May. 



309 

//. Agreement on the Status of Forces (Marking of Service Vehicles : 
Memorandum by the Italian Delegation)? 

23. The Working Group considered a memorandum by the Italian 
Delegation, recommending that registration numbers and nationality 
marks of service motor vehicles be communicated as from now by 
Allied Headquarters and by the sending States to the receiving 
States. 
23a. The Working Group : 

(2) Endorsed this recommendation and asked the Secretariat to 
bring the matter to the notice of national Governments and 
the Standing Group. 

///. Implementation of the Status of Forces Agreement. 



26. With reference to paragraph 5 of Article IX, the general un- 
derstanding of the Working Group was that the receiving State 
would provide such facilities where necessary, on the same terms as 
for its own comparable personnel. This paragraph should, however, 
not be interpreted as requiring the receiving State to increase its 
medical services. 

MS-R(52) 7 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status. 
4-5 June 1952 

/. Revised Draft of the Protocol on Headquarters. 1 

1. The Working Group examined the revised draft of the Protocol 
on Military Headquarters and the comments made by delegations. 2 

2. The Working Group : 

(1) Agreed, with certain reservations, to the text of the draft 
Protocol on the Status of Allied Headquarters Set Up Pur- 
suant to the North Atlantic Treaty and agreed to submit it 
to the Council. 3 



5 Reference: MS-D(52) 7 (24 April 1952). 

i Reference: MS-D(52) 6(R) (5 May 1952). 

2 For comments by Governments and by SACLANT, see MS-D(52) 9 (24 May 
1952), together with Addendum 1 (29 May 1952) and Addendum 2 (30 May 
1952). The two Addenda will be found at the end of MS-D(52) 9. 

3C-M(52) 30 (7 June 1952) contains the text of the Protocol as submitted 
to the Council, together with a covering Report. 



310 

3. Individual points and articles were discussed, and the following 
proposals or interpretations adopted. 

Article 1 

4. The Working Group : 

(2) Agreed to delete the references to "an international budget" 
in view of the uncertainty about future methods of financing 
international Headquarters. It was the understanding of the 
Working Group that the Protocol would apply to the type 
of Headquarters presently having an international budget. 

Article 3 

5. The Working Group : 

(3) Decided to add the following paragraph 2 to Article 3: 

An Allied Headquarters shall be considered to be a force for 
the purposes of Article II, paragraph 2 of Article V, paragraph 
10 of Article VII, paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of Article IX, and 
Article XIII of the Agreement. 

Article 5 

6. The Italian Delegate reminded the Working Group that it had 
previously been agreed that sending States and Allied Headquarters 
should supply the authorities of the receiving State with specimens 
of identity cards issued in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Article 
III of the Agreement and Article 5 of the Protocol. 

Article 6 

7. This Article was deleted, since the substance was contained in 
the new paragraph 2 of Article 3, referred to under paragraph 5, 
above. 

Article 7 (6) 4 

8. The Working Group : 

(4) Agreed that it was not necessary to specify in the Protocol 
an amount in respect of Allied Headquarters for the purpose 
of applying subparagraph (f) of paragraph 2 of Article 
VIII of the Agreement, since claims for compensation would 
be made in one of the currencies mentioned in that subpara- 
graph, where amounts had been specified. 



4 The number in parentheses here, as in the headings which follow, refers to 
the renumbering of these Articles in C-M(52) 30 (7 June 1952). The text 
under consideration, however, remains that contained in MS-D(52) 6(R) 
(5 May 1952). 



311 

9. The Working Group : 

(5) Agreed that the provisions of this Article did not relieve 
sending States of any responsibilities imposed on them by 
virtue of Article VIII of the Agreement. 

10. The Working Group : 

(6) Accepted the interpretation by the United States Delegate 
to the effect that the rights and obligations of an Allied 
Headquarters, as laid down in Article 4 of the Protocol, 
included the waiving of claims for compensation, referred to 
in paragraph 4 of Article VIII of the Agreement, by or 
against a military Headquarters. 

Article 8 

11. The Working Group : 

(7) Agreed to delete this Article, the substance of which was 
contained in paragraph 2 of Article 3, referred to in para- 
graph 5, above. 

Article 9 (7) 

12. The Canadian Delegate stated that his Government disagreed 
with the principle of giving the civilian component or civilians of an 
Allied Headquarters treatment different from that granted to the 
military element of such Headquarters. He drew attention to the fact 
that when an Article similar to that of paragraph 2 of Article 9 was 
incorporated in the Civilian Status Agreement, it was only with 
reluctance that the Canadian Representative acquiesced, and that 
Canadian acceptance of such an Article was a matter of expediency 
and did not in any way imply a precedent for any arrangements 
regarding Canadian residents employed by an international organiza- 
tion. He would therefore have to reserve his Government's position 
on paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the draft. 

13. The Chairman, speaking as the United Kingdom Delegate, said 
that his Government would much prefer to have Article 9 without 
paragraph 2. It could however reluctantly accept that paragraph if 
there was general support for its inclusion. If other Governments 
took reservations regarding this paragraph, the United Kingdom 
Government would have to reconsider its position. 

14. The Working Group : 

(8) Decided to leave paragraph 2 in the draft text and to make 
a reference to the problems involved in the report to the 
Council. 



312 



Article 10 (8) 



15. The Netherlands Delegate, supported by the Belgian Delegate, 
submitted the following alternative draft text of Article 10: 

1. While an Allied Headquarters will not, as a general rule, 
claim exemption from excise duties and from taxes on the sale 
of movable and immovable property which form part of the 
price to be paid, nevertheless^ when such Headquarters is mak- 
ing important purchases of property on which such duties and 
taxes have been charged or are chargeable, the Parties to the 
present Protocol will, whenever possible, make appropriate 
administrative arrangements for the remission or return of 
the amount of duty or tax. 

2. An Allied Headquarters shall have the right granted to a 
force under Article XI of the Agreement, subject to the same 
conditions. 

3. The relief provided for by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article 
is only granted to an Allied Headquarters on account of 
property purchased, imported or exported for the exclusive 
official use of the said Headquarters as such. 

4. The expression "duties and taxes" in this Article does not 
include charges for services rendered. 

They reserved their position with regard to the text of Article 10, 
contained in MS-D( 52) 6 (Eevise). 

16. The Italian Delegate stated that he was in a position to accept 
Article 10 in its present form, on the understanding : 

(a) that, "so far as practicable" meant "within the limits of the 
existing legislation" ; 

(b) that exemptions should apply only to expenditures made in 
the direct interests of common defense ; 

(c) that exemption from charges for services rendered by public 
utilities was excluded therefrom ; 

(d) that the appropriate details would be settled in the context 
of bilateral agreements between the relevant receiving Gov- 
ernments and Allied Headquarters. 

17. The French Delegation stated that France would accept the 
present text, subject to the two following provisos : 

(a) that the expenditures in question were made in the interests 
of common defense and insofar as they had a direct bearing 
on the duties of Allied Headquarters ; 

(b) that when Governments entered into negotiations with 
Allied Headquarters for the purpose of concluding agree- 
ments, such negotiations should interlock with negotiations 






313 

conducted with other countries and be subject to the accept- 
ance of the same provisions by all the Parties concerned. 

18. The Chairman, speaking as the United Kingdom Delegate, 
said that his Government was unable to accept section (b) of the 
United States interpretation of Article 10, as stated in MS-R(52) 6, 
par. 8. It felt that this was a matter to be left for bilateral 
negotiations. 

19. The Danish Delegate stressed that the exemption from duties 
and taxes was only to be granted to Allied Headquarters as such, 
and not to its individual members. 

19a. The Working Group: 

(9) Confirmed this view. 

20. At the request of the United States Delegate, the Working 
Group : 

(10) Agreed that the words "charges for services rendered" in 
paragraph 4 of Article 10 could only mean "charges for 
services actually rendered." 

The United States Delegate added that in his view it could extend 
only to services requested. Other members of the Working Group 
were unable to accept this interpretation on behalf of their Govern- 
ments and pointed out that it would be impracticable for the 
parties to insist on a specific request for every service rendered. 

Article 11(9) 

21. The Italian Delegate said that it was his Government's view 
that the assets dealt with in this Article would be subject to the 
law of property in the country where they were located, in the 
absence of international agreement to the contrary. 

22. The Working Group: 

(11) Agreed with this view. 

(12) Noted that the insertion in paragraph 6 of the words 
"taking into consideration any applicable law of the 
receiving State" did not mean that the Council would 
necessarily be bound by the provisions of local law. 

23. The United States Delegate said, with respect to paragraph 
(b) of this Article, that his Government wished to have put on 
record the view that, in agreeing to any principle for the dis- 
tribution of the increases or loss in value of land, buildings or 
fixed installations used by an Allied Headquarters, no precedent 
will be set up for similar determinations in other connections. 



314 



Articles 12(10) and 13(11) 



24. The Working Group considered the proposals by SACLANT 
for a new wording of these paragraphs. It was felt that the texts 
previously agreed by the Working Group were adequate. 

Article 14(12) 

25. The Working Group was in agreement with the Belgian 
Representative in assuming that any receiving State which might 
have difficulties in complying with requests for transfers or con- 
versions according to paragraph 2 of Article 14 would not refuse 
authorization for such transfers or conversions without consult- 
ing the Headquarters concerned. 

26. The Working Group: 

(13) Agreed that the subject dealt with by SACLANT in its 
suggested new paragraph to Article 14 might appro- 
priately be dealt with in the Headquarters financial 
regulations. 

//. Interpretation of the Status of Forces Agreement, 

27. The Chairman, speaking as the United Kingdom Delegate, 
requested the Working Group to note his Government's interpreta- 
tion of Article III of the Agreement, that since Article III (and 
in particular paragraph 5) does not apply to persons outside the 
definition of "civilian component" and their dependents, such 
persons will be subject to all the usual controls regarding immigra- 
tion and period of residence. 

28. The Chairman, still speaking as the United Kingdom Dele- 
gate, said with regard to Article VIII of the Agreement on Mili- 
tary Status, that if a claim for compensation were brought for 
decision before a court of the United Kingdom, it would generally, 
if not always, be advisable to appoint such court to act as arbitrator 
for the purpose of any dispute to which paragraph 8 of Article 
VIII applies, in order to avoid any possibility of conflict between 
the decision of the arbitrator and that of the court. 

777. Questions of Procedure and Report to the Council. 

29. The Chairman said he proposed to submit a brief report to 
the Council, restating the purpose of the Protocol and calling 
attention to the reservations made by the Canadian, Belgian and 
Netherlands Delegations. 



315 

30. The French Delegate mentioned the questions relating to 
immunities and postal services which had been held over. 

31. The Chairman pointed out that there would be a paragraph 
in the report to the Council stating that, contrary to certain 
delegations, the Working Group did not regard these two points 
as coming within the scope of the Protocol and considered that they 
should be settled through bilateral negotiations. 

32. The Chairman proposed, and the Working Group agreed, 
that the Council should be invited to adopt at the signing of the 
Protocol a Kesolution recommending member Governments to apply 
the Protocol provisionally, pending its ratification. 



V. Date of Next Meeting of the Working Group. 

36. The Chairman suggested that the Working Group might 
have to meet again at some later date to prepare the appropriate 
legal instruments to implement the provisions of paragraph 2 of 
Article 14 of the Protocol when the EDC comes into being. 



C-R(52) 14 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 
2 July 1952 



IV. Draft Protocol on the Status of Military Headquarters. 1 

19. Mr. Evans, Chairman of the Working Group, said that 
reservations on two articles of the Protocol (Articles 7 and 8) had 
been made during the meetings of the Working Group. The three 
Delegations concerned (Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands) 
had been requested to ask their Governments to reconsider their 
position. 

20. The Canadian Representative said that his Government could 
withdraw its reservation on Article 7, but asked that a statement 
on its position in connection with that Article be placed on record. 2 

21. The Norwegian Representative pointed out that the Canadian 
"Statement of Position" was difficult to distinguish from a reserva- 

i Reference: C-M(52) 30 (7 June 1952), containing the revised draft of the 
Protocol and a covering Report. 
2 See MS-D(52) 10 (2 July 1952). 



316 

tion. He would have to report back to his Government and sug- 
gested that the whole question of Article 7 be considered again 
by the Working Group. 

22. The Belgian Representative supported this view and sug- 
gested that fiscal experts should also be invited to consider the 
problem. 

23. The Turkish Representative said that he must reserve his 
Government's position on the whole Protocol, since his Government 
had not had time to study it in detail. 

24. The Greek Representative said that his Government had no 
objection to the Protocol but felt that it could not sign it since 
it was not a signatory of the Status of Forces Agreement, which 
had been signed before Greece was a member of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization. Although the Greek Government expressed 
its willingness to accede to the Agreement without further delay, 
the interpretation given by the International Staff to Article XVIII 
of that Agreement was that Greece could not be admitted to acces- 
sion now. 

25. The Netherlands Representative said that his Government 
had two reservations to make in connection with Article 12. 3 

26. The Council : 

Agreed to refer the Protocol back to the Working Group, 
with special reference to Articles 7, 8 and 12. It was agreed 
that the Working Group would hold its first meeting on the 
following day and render an early report to the Council. 



MS-R(52) 8 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
3 July 1952 

/. Draft Protocol on the Status of Allied Headquarters: Reserva- 
tions of Certain Delegations regarding Articles 7, #, 12. 1 

1. The Chairman said that some delegations had reserved their 
position with regard to three Articles in the draft Protocol; the 
Council at its last meeting had therefore decided to refer the 
document back to the Working Group. 2 



3 See MS-D(52) 10 (2 July 1952). 

i Reference: C-M(52) 30 (7 June 1952). 

2 See C-R(52) 14, par. 2(3 (2 July 1952). 






317 

Article 7 

2. The Chairman said that paragraph (a) of the Canadian 
statement 3 lent itself to two interpretations : it might read to mean 
that the Canadian Government wishes to emphasize their right 
under the provisions of Article 7 to tax Canadian nationals, pro- 
vided they conclude an agreement to this effect with the Allied 
Headquarters concerned, or it might read to mean that the Canadian 
Government reserve their right to tax Canadian employees whether 
or not an agreement is concluded under paragraph 2 of Article 7. 

3. The Canadian Delegate promised to find out which of the two 
interpretations reflected his Government's views. If the former 
interpretation were the correct one, which was generally assumed 
by the Working Group, he would endeavor to have the text of 
the Canadian statement modified to make the meaning quite clear. 

4. It was the general feeling of the Working Group that the 
Canadian statement thus modified would be acceptable to the other 
member Governments. 

5. The Belgian and the Netherlands Delegates said that their 
Governments were reluctant to accept the principle laid down in 
paragraph 2 of Article 7. By this provision, civilians employed at 
Allied Headquarters would be divided into two categories subject 
to different rules in respect of taxation. They suggested that the 
time might have come for the reconsideration by fiscal experts 
of the whole question of taxing internationally paid personnel, 
and of the possibility of introducing a scheme of international 
taxation as previously worked out, though not implemented, by the 
Brussels Organization; failing agreement on such an arrangement, 
it might be possible to introduce taxation either by the host Govern- 
ment or by the national Government concerned. 

6. Summing up, the Chairman suggested that there were three 
courses of action: 

(a) to postpone signature of the Protocol until the question of 
taxation has been further studied; or 

(b) to sign the Protocol in its present form and to recommend 
to the Council to examine the question of taxing interna- 
tionally paid personnel; or 

(c) to delete paragraph 2 of Article 7 from the Protocol. 

7. Alternatives (a) and (c) were likely to meet with strong 
objections in view of the urgent need to define the status of Allied 
Headquarters and in view of the strong preference on the part of 
certain delegations for the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 7. 






3MS-D(52) 10 (2 July 1952) 



318 

8. The Working Group : 

(1) Decided to defer further consideration of this point until 
delegations had received fresh instructions. 

Article 8 

9. The Belgian Delegate that the words of paragraph 1 of Article 
8 should be amended to read as follows: "... affecting expenditure 
by them in the interest of common defence and for their official and 
exclusive benefit." 

10. The Working Group : 

(2) Accepted the amendment, subject to confirmation by 
Governments. 

Article 12 

11. The Netherlands Delegate said that his Government did 
not propose any modification of the text of Article 12. They were, 
however, at present disinclined to sign the Protocol before, a satis- 
factory solution had been found to two questions: 

(a) an exchange rate guarantee for the funds held by NATO; 
and 

(b) a system of controls on transfers of such funds, in par- 
ticular into hard currencies. 

12. He pointed out that the question under (a) was under dis- 
cussion by the Military Budget Committee, and suggested that 
further discussion in the Working Group on Article 12 should be 
deferred until the Military Budget Committee had concluded its 
deliberations. 

13. The Working Group : 

(3) Agreed to request the Secretariat to have the two questions 
considered by the Military Budget Committee at its forth- 
coming meeting, and to invite the Committee to express its 
opinion before the next meeting of the Working Group. 



MS-R(52) 9 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the Working Group on Status, 
10 July 1952. 

/. Draft Protocol on the Status of Allied Headquarters. 1 



i Reference: C-M(52) 30 (7 June 1952) 



319 

Articles 3 and 7: Drafting Amendments 

1. The Chairman suggested that the intention of the Protocol 
would be clarified by: 

(a) amending Article 3(b) (ii), by adding after the words 
"Allied Headquarters" the words "or in respect of whom 
an arrangement has been made under paragraph 2 of 
Article 7 of this Protocol"; and 

(b) amending the passage within brackets in paragraph 2 of 
Article 7 to read : "other than those to whom paragraph 1 
of this Article applies and, if the Party concluding the 
arrangement so desires, any not ordinarily resident within 
its territory." 

2. The Working Group agreed that these amendments correctly 
represented the intention of the Protocol but considered that it was 
not desirable to make further amendments at this stage and that 
it would be sufficient to record the confirmation of the Chairman's 
interpretation of the intention of the Protocol in the Summary 
Record of the meeting. 

Article 7 

3. The Canadian Representative confirmed the accuracy of the 
first interpretation of paragraph (a) of the Canadian declaration, 2 
given by the Chairman at the previous meeting. 3 He added that 
the drafting changes suggested by the Chairman had been endorsed 
by the Canadian Government. Paragraph (a) would now read 
as follows: 

These authorities regard Canada's right to tax Canadian citizens 
resident or ordinarily resident in Canada as having been main- 
tained by the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 7 permitting 
a Party to the Protocol to conclude an arrangement whereby it 
can employ, pay and tax each member of the quota of its nationals 
serving on the Allied Headquarters. 

4. The Working Group: 

(1) Noted the text of the Canadian declaration as amended. 

5. The Netherlands Representative reiterated the opposition of 
the Netherlands Government to the principle of extending exemption 
from taxation to a new group of international officials and stated 
his Government's preference for the course of action suggested 
in MS-R(52) 8, par. 6(a). Since, however, a majority of delegations 
were in favor of signing the Protocol in its present form, he would 



2MS-D(52) 10 (2 July 1952). 

3 See MS-R(52) 8, par. 2 (3 July 1952). 



320 

not press his point, provided that the Working Group would recom- 
mend to the Council that the question of taxing international 
officials should be studied by an appropriate body within NATO. 

5a. The Portuguese Representative said that his Government could 
not accept the deletion of paragraph 2 of Article 7, since this 
would mean a departure from the principle of not taxing contribu- 
tions from member countries, and they wished to avoid the creation 
of a precedent in this respect. 

6. The Working Group: 

(2) Agreed to 

(a) retain Article 7 in its present form; 

(b) recommend to the Council that an appropriate NATO 
agency be entrusted with the task of examining the 
merits and possibility of introducing a system of taxa- 
tion of salaries of internationally employed personnel of 
NATO, including International Headquarters; and 

(c) invite delegations to recommend to their Governments 
that they should consider similar steps with regard to 
other international organizations. 

(3) Noted the following statement by the Netherlands Delega- 
tion: 

Several members of the Working Group have declared that 
the regulations concerning the fiscal status of the International 
Headquarters and their personnel, as set forth in Articles 7 
and 8 of the draft Protocol, cannot satisfy our Governments. 

The main objection of those Governments is to the clause of 
Article 7 exempting from taxation the salaries of civilian 
personnel paid directly by the Headquarters. 

Although this exemption is in accordance with the practice 
followed during recent years in respect of the personnel of 
international organizations — see, for example, Article 19 of the 
Convention on the Status of NATO, signed at Ottawa — these 
Governments, for the reasons explained below, consider that 
this policy should be discontinued. 

By granting exemption from taxation to the ever increasing 
personnel of international organizations, a large and growing 
class of persons is being created who unjustifiably are enjoying 
privileges which place them in a more favored position than 
other taxpayers or than officials of equal rank in the employ of 
member States. 

This creation is in conflict with the principles of reasonable 
and equitable taxation and is, therefore, contrary to the spirit 
of justice. 



321 

So as not to delay the signing of the Protocol in question, the 
Representatives of these Governments have accepted the pro- 
posed Articles 7 and 8, subject, however, to the Working 
Group's recommending to the NATO Council that, when this 
Protocol is discussed, it should set up a committee of fiscal 
experts to seek a satisfactory formula for application, not only 
to NATO, but also to the other international organizations of 
which the NATO countries are members. 

These Representatives consider that the committee in ques- 
tion would be well advised to base its work on the recommenda- 
tions put forward in this connection in Paris in January 1952 
by the fiscal experts of the signatories to the Brussels Treaty. 

(4) The Working Group feels that it can give this proposal its 
support and therefore recommend to the Council that such 
a committee should be set up. 

6a. The views expressed on this matter by the Netherlands 
Delegation were endorsed by the Belgian Delegate. 

Article 8 

7. The Working Group: 

(5) Agreed to Article 8 of the draft Protocol, subject to the 
amendment proposed by the Belgian Delegate, namely : 
after the words "common defence" the insertion of the 
words "and for their official and exclusive benefit." 

Article 12 

8. The Secretary of the Working Group reported that he had 
referred to the Military Budget Committee the two questions 
raised by the Netherlands Delegation concerning Article 12, namely 
the question of an exchange rate guarantee, and that of the controls 
on the transfer of NATO funds, in particular into hard currencies. 
This Committee, which was meeting on the same day, had started 
to examine these questions; in the light of discussion the Committee 
felt that it would be necessary to hold a joint meeting with the 
Civil Budget Committee. This meeting could not be held before 
22 July. 

9. The Working Group : 

(6) Agreed not to submit its report to the Council until the 
questions raised by the Netherlands Delegation concerning 
Article 12 had been solved. 4 



4 The Netherlands Delegation has since notified the Secretariat of the with- 
drawal of its reservation on this point. [Footnote in original text]. 



322 

//. Interpretation of the Status of Forces Agreement. 

10. The Chairman, speaking in his capacity as the United 
Kingdom Delegate, referred to the words "or out of any other 
act, omission or occurrence for which a force or civilian component 
is legally responsible" at the beginning of paragraph 5 of Article 
VIII of the Status of Forces Agreement. He said that, in the view 
of his Government, the intention behind these words (read with 
subparagraph (a) of paragraph 5) was that the same principles 
which are applied under the law of the receiving State for determin- 
ing whether the receiving State is legally liable in tort for the 
acts or omissions of the employees, etc., of its armed forces or in 
respect of damage arising from property owned by them, should 
be applied in determining the liability of a visiting force or send- 
ing State for the purposes of paragraph 5. (See paragraph 6 of 
MS-K(51) 10 of 20 April 1951, which relates to the text of para- 
graph 5 as contained in D-D (51) 57 of 28 February 1951, and 
paragraphs 29-30 of MS-R(51) 18 of 2 May 1951, which relates 
to the text in MS-D(51) 28 of 27 April 1951). Consequently, 
although a visiting force or a civilian component does not have 
juridical personality in the United Kingdom and therefore cannot 
be sued there as such, the United Kingdom proposes, by arrange- 
ment with other NATO countries which have forces in the United 
Kingdom, to develop appropriate procedures to enable the question 
of liability to be determined on the above basis in disputed cases 
in accordance with the intention of paragraph 5. The Chairman 
said that the United Kingdom Government would like their inter- 
pretation of paragraph 5 to be brought to the attention of other 
NATO Governments and any comments, which those Governments 
might have, to be communicated to the United Kingdom Delegation 
as soon as possible. 

777. Date of the Next Meeting. 

11. The date of the next meeting was left open and would depend 
on the progress made by the Military Budget Committee with 
regard to Article 12 of the draft Protocol. 

C-R(52) 18 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 
20 August 1952 



323 

//. Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters. 1 

2. The Chairman recalled that the preparation of the Protocol 
had taken many months of intensive work, and he expressed 
appreciation of the spirit of cooperation shown by member countries, 
which had made it possible to agree on a text without reservation. 
He also thanked the Chairman of the Working Group for the 
excellent way in which he had conducted the proceedings of that 
Group. 

2a. The Netherlands representative recalled that his Government 
had reserved its position on Article 12 at the meeting of the 
Council on 2 July. That this reservation had now been with- 
drawn, however, implied no lessening of the apprehension felt by 
the Netherlands in regard to this Article. The Netherlands Govern- 
ment still had the same difficulty in approving the text as it stood; 
but, in order not to delay signature and because it was confident 
that the proposals at present under consideration by the Budget 
Committee would eventually be adopted, the Netherlands Repre- 
sentative would make no formal reservation. 

However, in view of the resignation of the Netherlands Govern- 
ment, there was no assurance that the new Government would be 
prepared to present this Protocol to Parliament for ratification, pend- 
ing the results of the above mentioned study by the Budget 
Committee. 

Accession of Greece and Turkey to Forces Agreement 

3. The Council: 

(1) Adopted the draft Resolution 2 on the accession of Greece 
and Turkey to the Agreement Between the Parties to the 
North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their 
Forces. 

Signing of the Protocol 

4. As certain Representatives had not yet received their Govern- 
ment's authorization to sign the Protocol, the Chairman proposed 
that, in view of the general desire for an early signature, a special 
meeting be convened as soon as the Representatives concerned were 
able to participate. 

5. The Council : 

(2) Invited those delegations who had not yet received authori- 
zation to sign the Protocol to notify the Secretariat as soon 
as this had been received. 



1 For the final text of the Protocol, see page 43, supra. A copy of this final 
text was distributed on 26 September 1952, for information and record purposes, 
as C-M(52) 30(F), which has been omitted. 

2 C-M(52) 63, which has been omitted here. 



324 

(3) Agreed that a meeting would be convened at the discretion 
of the Chairman for the purpose of signing the Protocol. 

Application of Hie Protocol 

6. It was generally agreed, on the suggestion of the United King- 
dom Representative, that at a later date consideration would be given 
to the application of the Protocol to the newly established Head- 
quarters, Allied Land Forces, South East Europe. 

7. The Council : 

(4) Adopted the draft Resolution 3 on the application to certain 
subordinate Headquarters of the Protocol on the Status of 
International Military Headquarters. 

Implementation of the Protocol 

8. The Council: 

(5) Adopted the draft Resolution 4 on implementation of the 
Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquar- 
ters, amended by the deletion of the words "signed today" 
in paragraph 1. 

Studies recommended by the Working Group 

9. The Council : 

(6) Instructed the Secretariat to make arrangements for the 
studies recommended 5 by the Working Group on Military 
Status to be undertaken. 



C-R(53) 27 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 
20 May 1953 



V. Tax Exemption for SHAPE and Subordinate Headquarters. 1 

24. M. Lebigot (SHAPE) said that, as a result of negotiations 
with the French Government, an agreement had been reached with 
regard to tax exemption for SHAPE and its subordinate headquar- 
ters which was satisfactory both to SHAPE and, he believed, to the 
Military Budget Committee. It was hoped that similar agreement 
could be reached with the host Governments of other military 
headquarters. 



3C-M(52) 56, Annex B (25 July 1952). 
4C-M(52) 56, Annex C (25 July 1952). 
5C-M(52) 56, par. 7 (25 July 1952). 
i Reference: C-M(53) 62 (5 May 1963). 



325 

25. The French Representative pointed out that the wording of 
paragraph 3(a) of Annex B to the document before the Council went 
too far in that it recommended that there should be exemption for 
expenditure incurred "from all taxes or fees whatsoever." The word- 
ing of Article 8 of the Protocol on the Status of International Mili- 
tary Headquarters, of which the present document was an imple- 
mentation, referred only to relief from duties and taxes "as far as 
practicable." Further, paragraph 5 of this Annex was a recommenda- 
tion that the Council should invite SHAPE to continue negotiations 
with all Governments concerned on the basis of the recommendations 
contained in paragraph 3. He felt that the Council could not endorse 
the recommendation in view of the wording of paragraph 3(a). 

26. The Netherlands Representative agreed with the French Repre- 
sentative on this point and requested that paragraph 5 should read: 
"continue the negotiations with all Governments concerned, giving 
due consideration to the recommendations contained in paragraph 3 
above." 

27. The Standing Group Liaison Officer asked whether the recom- 
mendation was intended to cover all headquarters or whether it was 
limited only to those under SHAPE command. 

28. General Roggen, Chairman of the Military Budget Committee, 
said that the recommendation was intended to cover all international 
military headquarters including, of course, SACLANT. SHAPE 
had simply taken the first step in negotiating with the French Gov- 
ernment and was anxious to know whether the Council approved of 
the step it had taken. The Military Budget Committee had examined 
the question from a strictly budgetary point of view, and its recom- 
mendations, contained in Annex B to C-M(53) 62, were based on 
budgetary considerations. 

29. After a brief discussion, the Council : 

Agreed that a note should be prepared by the Secretariat indicating 
the action called for by the Council and that the question should be 
re-examined by the Council as soon as possible. 



C-R(53) 30 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 
17 June 1953 



326 

///. Tax Exemption for Allied Military Headquarters} 

9. The Chairman pointed out that C-M(53) 74 had been prepared 
by the Secretariat in conformity with the request made by the Coun- 
cil at its meeting on 20 May. The Council was invited to consider the 
action proposed in paragraph 6 of this document. 

10. The Norwegian Representative said that, while he did not anti- 
cipate that his Government would object to the recommendations in 
paragraph 6 of this document, he had no instructions and must there- 
fore reserve his position for the time being. 

11. The United Kingdom Representative said that, while he could 
endorse the recommendations contained in paragraph 6(a) of the 
document, he must point out that in the case of one international 
headquarters the decision for these matters would rest primarily with 
the Government of Malta. He had no doubt, however, that the au- 
thorities in London would bring to the notice of that Government 
the importance which NATO attached to the matter. 

12. The United States Representative said that, while approving 
the action suggested in paragraph 6 of the document, his Government 
wished to emphasize the fact that nothing in the document under 
discussion should be interpreted as contradicting the established 
policy of making facilities available to headquarters free of charge to 
the greatest possible extent. 

13. A number of Representatives said that they must reserve their 
position with regard to the date of 1 November 1952, which was sug- 
gested as the date on which exemptions from taxation would take 
effect. It was generally agreed that whatever date was finally ap- 
proved would apply to the host Governments concerned. 

14. The Council : 

Approved the recommendations contained in paragraph 6 of 
C-M(53) 74, subject: 

(a) to confirmation by those Permanent Representatives who 
were without instructions from their Governments; and 

(b) to the reservations with regard to the date indicated in 
paragraph 6(d) (i) of the document, referred to in para- 
graph 13 above. 

C-R(53) 47 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 
4 November 1953 



i Reference: C-M(53) 74 (10 June 1953). Previous reference: C-R(53) 27, 
par. 24-29 (20 May 1953). 



327 

VI. Signature of Agreement between the French Government and 
SAC EUR. 1 

18. The French Representative informed the Council that the 
Agreement concluded between the French Government and SACEUR 
to determine the special conditions relating to the installation and 
operation in French metropolitan territory of the Supreme Head- 
quarters of the Allied Forces in Europe and of subordinate head- 
quarters would be signed in Paris on 5 November 1953. The text of 
the Agreement would be communicated to the Council. This Agree- 
ment related to the Protocol on Headquarters and would be signed 
at 11.30 at the Ministry of National Defense by M. Mons and General 
Schuyler. 

19. The Council took note of the statement by the French Repre- 
sentative. 



C-R(53) 51 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 
9 December 1953 



VII. Military Headquarters Protocol. 

51. The Netherlands Representative, speaking on behalf of his own 
Government and of his Belgian and Luxembourg colleagues, said 
that, on 20 June 1953, Representatives of Belgium, Luxembourg and 
the Netherlands signed a Declaration concerning the Military Head- 
quarters Protocol, in which it was stated that their nationals should 
not avail themselves of the provisions of that Protocol to claim in the 
territory of any of these Powers any exemption which they did not 
enjoy in their own territory in the matter of duties, taxes and other 
charges, the unification of which had been or would be effected pur- 
suant to the Agreement relating to the establishment of the Belgium- 
Luxembourg-Netherlands Economic Union. The original of this 
Declaration had in the meantime been deposited with the Department 
of State in Washington, where eventually the instruments of ratifica- 
tion would also be deposited. He wished to add that this in no way 
implied a reservation on the obligations accepted vis-a-vis other 

i This is the Agreement of which the original draft appeared in D-D (51) 
301 (R) (3 January 1952). 



328 

NATO partners under the Protocol ; the Declaration had as its only 
purpose the alignment of certain provisions of the Protocol with the 
special relationship existing between the three countries. 

52. The Council took note of the statement by the Netherlands 
Representative. 



C-R(54) 24 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 
2 June 1954 



///. Agreement on the Status of NATO Armed Forces. 



12. The Icelandic Representative pointed out that the questions 
covered in the NATO Agreement, so far as Iceland was concerned, 
were dealt with in a bilateral Agreement between the United States 
and Iceland. 1 His Government had, therefore, taken no steps to 
ratify the multilateral Agreement, since it considered that no useful 
purpose would be served by so doing. The view of his Government 
had been made known to the Council Deputies in London in 1951, 
and there had been no objection to the position then taken by Iceland. 
However, if other Representatives felt there was some advantage in 
having Iceland ratify this Agreement, he would be glad to hear their 
views. 



15. The Council : 

(2) Agreed to consider the special position of Iceland at a later 
meeting of the Council. 2 



C-R(54) 26 

Summary Record of a Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 
23 June 1954 



i See MS-D(51) 31 (25 May 1951). 

2 See C-R(54) 2G, par. 12-16 (23 June 1954). 



329 



///. Status of Forces Agreement : Special Position of Iceland? 



12. The Chairman reminded the Council that at their meeting on 
2 June they had agreed to consider the special position of Iceland, 
with regard to ratification of the Agreement on the Status of NATO 
Armed Forces, at a later meeting. At the meeting of 2 June, the 
Representative of Iceland had referred to the bilateral Agreement 
between Iceland and the United States. 2 The Secretariat had exam- 
ined that Agreement, and it seemed clear that the Agreement covered 
all the points contained in the NATO Military Status Agreement. 
Moreover, in Article 11 of the Iceland-United States Agreement it 
was stated that : "The Government of Iceland will extend to the 
forces of any Government signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty, 
when such forces are stationed in Iceland, the same privileges ex- 
tended to the United States forces by preceding Articles of this 
Annex upon the request of the Government concerned." In these 
circumstances, did the Council feel that there were any practical 
advantages in ratification by Iceland of the NATO Military Status 
Agreement ? 

13. In the course of the subsequent discussion the following main 
points were made : 

(a) It was possible that the bilateral Agreement did not, in fact, 
cover all the points contained in the multilateral Agreement, 
particularly with regard to intergovernmental claims and 
civilian components of armed forces. 

(b) There was the special problem of small numbers of service 
personnel who might find themselves in Iceland for short 
periods. Any incidents which might arise out of their 
temporary stay in Iceland were not covered, except in the 
case of United States forces. 

(c) If member Governments other than the United States asked 
for the bilateral Agreement to be extended to cover their 
forces stationed in Iceland, they would still have no firm 
juridical basis, in that the bilateral Agreement might be 
revoked at any time by the two parties to it. Further, any 
question of interpretation of the bilateral Agreement would 
be decided by the two parties to it, without third parties 
having a legal right to make their views known. 

(d) It was generally felt that, even though the bilateral Agree- 
ment might be extended to include third parties, the most 
satisfactory procedure would be for Iceland to sign and 



i Previous reference: C-R(54) 24, par. 9-15 (2 June 1954). 
2 See MS-D(51) 31 (25 May 1951). 



330 

ratify the multilateral Agreement whether or not the bi- 
lateral Agreement was subsequently rescinded. 

14. The Representative of Iceland thought that it was not quite 
true to say that this was a purely bilateral Agreement, and he pointed 
out that in the preamble to the Agreement it was stated that it had 
been signed on behalf of NATO. At the same time, he stressed the 
fact that his Government was not trying to avoid its proper respon- 
sibilities but simply felt that, if Iceland were to ratify the multi- 
lateral Agreement, a certain amount of confusion and duplication 
might result. His Government was fully prepared to consider any 
difficulties or requirements which member Governments might bring 
to its notice. 

15. The Standing Group Liaison Officer pointed out that this was a 
question with which SACLANT was also directly concerned, since 
any of the nations with ships under his command might be involved. 

16. The Council : 

(1) Instructed the Secretariat to make a further study of the 
two Agreements and to report to the Council as to the differ- 
ence, if any, which might exist between them. 

(2) Agreed to consider this problem further as soon as the 
Secretariat report was available. 



PART III. DOCUMENTS 

Cmd. 7868 

Agreement Relative to the Status of Members of the Armed Forces 
of the Brussels Treaty Powers x 

His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Belgium, the President 
of the French Republic, President of the French Union, Her Royal 
Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty the Queen 
of the Netherlands and His Majesty the King of Great Britain, 
Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, 

Desiring to define the conditions applicable to armed forces of 
any one of them stationed in the territory of any other of them in 
conformity with the Treaty signed at Brussels the 17th March, 1948 2 
hereinafter referred to as the Brussels Treaty, 

Have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries : 
[Names omitted], 
who, having exhibited their full powers found in good and due form, 
have agreed as follows : — 

Article 1 

Definitions 

In this Agreement the expression — 

(a) " foreign force'''' means an armed force maintained by a Con- 
tracting Party in the execution of duties under the Brussels 
Treaty situated in the territory of another Contracting 
Party ; 

(b) "sending State" means the Party maintaining the force; and 

(c) "receiving State" means the Party in the territory of which 
the force is stationed or through which it is passing in 
transit ; 

(d) "members of a foreign force" means members of that force 
travelling or resident in the execution of their duties under 
the Brussels Treaty in the territory of a Contracting Party 
other than the "sending State." 



i Cmd. 7868. This was the basis for the original United States draft of the 
NATO Status of Forces Agreement: D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). 
2 Treaty Series No. 1 (1949), Cmd. 7599. 

331 



332 

Article 2 

1. For the purposes of this Agreement, the members of an armed 
force are classified as follows: — 

(i) Personnel on permanent duty; 
(ii) Personnel on temporary duty; 
(iii) Regularly constituted units or formations. 

2. The nominal roll of personnel in category (i) above shall be 
kept up to date by the Secretariat-General of the Brussels Treaty 
Defence Organisation and forwarded to the representatives on the 
Permanent Commission of the Brussels Treaty for transmission to 
their Governments. 

Article 3 

1. On the conditions specified in paragraph 2, the "members of a 
foreign force" shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations on 
entering or leaving the territory of any of the Contracting Parties. 
They shall also be exempt from the regulations on the registration 
and control of aliens. 

2. The following documents only will be required in respect of 
"members of a foreign force." They must be presented on demand: 

(i) Personnel on permanent duty — 

(a) Officers: Tri-lingual identity card. 
(As in Appendix A.) 

(b) N.C.O.'s and Other Eanks : 
Personal service identity card ; 
Individual tri-lingual Movement Order. 
(As in Appendix B.) 

(ii) Personnel on temporary duty — 
Personal service identity card ; 
Individual tri-lingual Movement Order. 
(As in Appendix B.) 
(iii) Regularly constituted units or formations — 
Personal service identity card ; 
Collective tri-lingual Movement Order. 
(As in Appendix C.) 

Tri-lingual identity cards will be made out and issued to officers on 
permanent duty by the Secretariat-General of the Brussels Treaty 
Defence Organisation. 

Individual tri-lingual Movement Orders will be filled in and issued 
by the Service Ministries of the "sending State." 

Collective tri-lingual Movement Orders will be filled in and issued 
by Service Ministries of the "sending State" and counter-signed by 



333 

the representative of the Service Minister concerned of the "receiv- 
ing State" or, if necessary, "receiving States." 

Article 4 

The "receiving State," during the period before the provisions of 
the Convention on Eoad Traffic signed at Geneva, the 19th Septem- 
ber, 1949, 3 relating to driving licences or permits come into force so 
far as it is concerned, will either — 

(a) accept as valid without a driving test the driving licences or 
military driving permits issued by the "sending State"; or 

(b) issue its own licence to any "member of a foreign force" who 
holds a driving licence or military permit issued by the "send- 
ing State" without requiring him to undergo a driving test. 
Unless he holds an international driving permit, the statutory 
fee will be payable. 

After this period the "receiving State" will follow alternative (a) 
above exclusively. 

Article 5 

1. The "members of a foreign force" will wear uniform. 

They may, however, wear civilian dress; the regulations governing 
the wearing of civilian dress will be those in force in the "receiving 
State" for its own forces. 

Regularly constituted units or formations of a "foreign force" must 
be in uniform when crossing a frontier. 

2. Military vehicles shall carry, in addition to their registration 
number, a distinctive nationality mark, the form of which shall be 
agreed by the Military Committee of the Defence Organisation of the 
Brussels Treaty. 

Article 6 

1. The possession and carrying of arms by "members of a foreign 
force" shall be subject to the same laws and regulations as are applied 
to the forces of the "receiving State." 

2. "Members of a foreign force" in transit may carry arms, on con- 
dition that this is authorised by their Movement Orders, and that the 
weapons are unloaded and are carried in the regulation manner. 

3. In any case, officers of a "foreign force" are always authorised to 
retain possession of their regulation personal weapons. 



3 3 UST 3008 ; TIAS 2487 ; 125 UNTS 22. 



I 



334 

Article 7 

1. It is the duty of "members of a foreign force" to respect the 
laws in force of the "receiving State" and to abstain from any activity 
inconsistent with the spirit of the present Agreement, and, in particu- 
lar, from any political activity. 

2. "Members of a foreign force" who commit an offence in the 
"receiving State" against the laws in force in that State can be 
prosecuted in the courts of the "receiving State." 

When the act is also an offence against the law of the "sending 
State," the authorities of the "receiving State" will examine with 
the greatest sympathy any request, received before the court has 
declared its verdict, for the transfer of the accused for trial before 
the courts of the "sending State." 

Where a "member of a foreign force" commits an offence against 
the security of, or involving disloyalty to, the "sending State" or an 
offence against its property, or an offence against a member of the 
force to which he belongs, the authorities of the "receiving State" 
where the offence was committed will prosecute only if they consider 
that special considerations require them to do so. 

The competent military authorities of the "foreign force" shall 
have, within the "receiving State," any jurisdiction conferred upon 
them by the law of the "sending State" in relation to an offence com- 
mitted by a member of their own armed forces. 

3. In all cases where a "member of a foreign force" commits on 
the territory of the "receiving State" an offence either against the law 
of the "receiving State" or against the law of the "sending State," 
the authorities of both States will assist each other in the collection 
of evidence and the carrying out of all necessary investigations, in- 
cluding the seizure, and in proper cases the handing over of exhibits 
and of objects connected with the offence. 

The handing over of the exhibits and of the objects seized may, 
however, be made subject to their return within the time specified by 
the authority delivering them. 

4. Where the authorities of the "receiving State" consider that, in 
respect of an offence committed in the "receiving State" by a "mem- 
ber of a foreign force," the necessities of the investigation, trial and 
execution of sentence require the imprisonment of the offender, the 
authorities of the "foreign force" will assist in making the arrest, if 
the offender can be found and arrested in the territory of the "receiv- 
ing State." 

The authorities of the "receiving State" will, in the same way, 
furnish every facility for the tracing and arrest of "members of a 



335 

foreign force" wanted by the "sending State" in respect of an offence 
committed in the "receiving State." These authorities will, as soon as 
possible, hand over on their own territory to the "sending State" any 
"member of a foreign force" so arrested. They will also hand over 
to the "sending State" any "member of a foreign force" whom they 
may have imprisoned on a charge against their laws but whom they 
have decided not to prosecute. 

5. (a) A "foreign force" shall have, in the conditions and within 
the limits defined in (b) and (d) below, the right to police 
any camps, establishments or other premises (hereinafter 
referred to under the general term "camp") which they have 
occupied as a result of an agreement with the "receiving 
State." 

(b) The military police of the "foreign force" may take all 
appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance of order in 
such camps. They shall hand over to the police of the "re- 
ceiving State," without delay, any person caught in the act 
of committing or about to commit or just having committed 
an offence against the laws of the "receiving State." 

(c) The police of the "receiving State" may enter any camp for 
the purpose of arresting any person who is suspected of 
being guilty of an offence against the laws of the "receiving 
State." 

(d) The military police of a "foreign force" may only be em- 
ployed outside its camps at the request of the authorities of 
the "receiving State" and in liaison with those authorities 
and in so far as such employment is necessary to maintain 
order and discipline among the members of the force. The 
"foreign force" shall comply with any such request. 

Article 8 

1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article, each Contracting Party 
will be responsible for paying compensation for damage to third 
parties, caused in its territory by armed forces which are present 
there as a consequence of the Brussels Treaty in all cases where there 
would be a right to compensation if the damage had been caused by 
its own armed forces. 

Subject to paragraph 6 below, claims by third parties in respect 
of this damage will be filed and considered, and decisions will be 
taken thereon, in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable 

tin the "receiving State" to claims for damage caused by its own 
armed forces. If these claims are not settled by agreement, they shall 



336 

petent in case of damage caused by its own armed forces and in that 
case the Government of the "receiving State" will ensure the defence 
against the claims. 

2. The provisions of this Article do not apply to : — 

(a) Maritime salvage claims against a vessel used in connection 
with the Brussels Treaty or claims against such a vessel for 
damage caused by collision. These claims will be brought 
against the authorities of the Party to whom the vessel 
belongs. 

(b) Any damage suffered (i) to his person by a "member of an 
armed force" of any Party, while on duty, or (ii) by any 
property belonging to the State and used by Service Minis- 
tries (Navy, Army, Air Force) of any Party or its forces. 

In both these cases no claim shall lie against the State to whose 
forces the person responsible for the damage belongs. 

3. Subject to paragraph 4 of this Article, the cost of satisfying the 

claims referred to in paragraph 1 will be, at such intervals as may 

be agreed, distributed between the Parties in proportions which shall 

be provisionally, in default of subsequent agreement to the contrary, 

as follows : — 

Per cent 

United Kingdom 50 

France 25 

Belgium-Nether lands-Luxembourg 25 

4. The State on whose territory the damage has been caused will 
have no claim to contributions under paragraph 3 in respect of the 
cost of damage for which its own forces are exclusively responsible. 

5. The Chiefs-of-Staff Committee of the Brussels Treaty Defence 
Organisation will decide in case of doubt whether the provisions of 
paragraph 4 are applicable in any particular case. 

6. In the case of damage to State property (not excluded by para- 
graph 2 above and not covered by paragraph 4 above), the amount 
of the damage will be assessed by an arbitrator nominated by the 
"receiving State," after consultation with the other Parties, and 
chosen from amongst its own nationals who hold or who have held 
high judicial office and will be distributed in accordance with para- 
graph 3 above. 

This paragraph does not apply if the amount of the damage is 

less than — 

Luxembourg B.fr. 70,000 

Belgium F.fr. 490,000 

France L.fr. 70,000 

Netherlands fl. 5,320 

United Kingdom £ 500 

In the case of considerable variation in the rates of exchange be- 



337 

tween these currencies the Contracting Parties shall, by exchange of 
letters, agree on the appropriate adjustments of these amounts. 

7. Claims arising out of contracts concluded by "members of a 
foreign force" in the course of their duties are excluded from the 
operation of the preceding provisions of this x\rticle. They shall be 
dealt with by the authorities of the "foreign force" and the courts of 
the "receiving State'' shall have jurisdiction in regard thereto if they 
cannot otherwise be settled. 

Article 9 

1. Claims (other than contractual claims) against "members of a 
foreign force" arising out of tortious acts or omissions, not relating 
to the performance of their duties, shall be dealt with in accordance 
with the following paragraphs of this Article. 

2. The Government of the "receiving State" will consider the claim 
and assess the compensation in a just and fair manner, taking into 
account all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of 
the injured person, and will prepare a report on the matter. This 
report will then be delivered to the authorities of the "sending State," 
who will then decide without delay whether they will offer an ex 
gratia payment and, if so, of what amount. If these authorities 
decide to offer an ex gratia payment, they will offer to settle the claim 
by making this payment themselves. If this offer is accepted, they 
will inform the "receiving State" of their decision and of the sum 
paid. 

3. Nothing in the preceding paragraphs of this Article shall affect 
the jurisdiction of the courts of the "receiving State" to entertain the 
claims to which this Article relates brought against "members of a 
foreign force." 

Article 10 

If any question arises whether a tortious act or an omission of a 
"member of a foreign force" relates to the performance of his 
duties, the question shall be submitted to the arbitrator referred to in 
paragraph 6 of Article 8, whose decision on this point shall be final 
and conclusive in any court before which the claim for compensation 
may be brought. The arbitrator shall be furnished with all the 
information necessary to enable him to render a decision judicially. 

Article 11 

1. "Members of a foreign force'' may purchase locally goods neces- 
sary for their own consumption and such services as they need under 
the same conditions as the nationals of the "receiving State." 



338 

2. Goods required for the subsistence of a "foreign force'' will 
normally be purchased through the competent service departments 
which purchase such goods for the armed forces of the "receiving 
State.'' In order to avoid such purchases having any adverse effect 
on the economy of the "receiving State," the competent authorities of 
this State will indicate, when necessary, any articles the purchase of 
which should be restricted or entirely forbidden. 

3. After agreement between the military authorities of the "send- 
ing'' and "receiving States,*' the competent military authorities of the 
"receiving State" will assume sole responsibility for making suitable 
arrangements to make available to a "foreign force" the buildings 
and ground which it requires. These agreements and arrangements 
will be, as far as possible, in accordance with the regulations govern- 
ing the accommodation and billeting of troops of the "receiving- 
State." In the absence of a specified contract, the laws of the "receiv- 
ing State" shall determine the rights, arising out of the occupation, 
of the owner of the buildings or ground occupied. 

4. Civilian labour requirements of a "foreign force" will be satis- 
fied in the same way as those of the military authorities of the "re- 
ceiving State" and with the assistance of those authorities through 
the employment exchanges. The conditions of employment and work, 
in particular wages, supplementary payments and conditions for the 
protection of workers, shall be those laid down by the legislation of 
the "receiving State." Civilian workers employed by a "foreign 
armed force" shall not be regarded for any purpose as being members 
of that "force." 

5. When a "foreign force" has at the place where it is stationed 
inadequate medical or dental facilities, the members of that force 
may receive medical and dental care, including hospitalisation, under 
the same conditions as the forces of the "receiving State." 

6. The "receiving State" will give the most favourable considera- 
tion to requests for the grant to "members of a foreign force" of 
travelling facilities on its railways and of concessions with regard 
to fares. These facilities and concessions will be the subject of special 
arrangements to be made between the Governments concerned. 

7. Subject to any general or particular financial arrangements be- 
tween the Parties, payment in local currency for goods, accommoda- 
tion and services furnished under paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and, if necessary, 
5, will be made promptly by the military authorities of the "foreign 
force." 

8. The "foreign force" shall not by reason of this Article enjoy any 
exemption from taxes or duties relating to purchases and services 
chargeable under the fiscal regulations of the "receiving State." 



339 

Article 12 

1. "Members of a foreign force" shall — 

(a) enjoy exemption from income tax levied in the "receiving 
State" on any pay or allowances which they receive from the 
Government of the "sending State." Such other exemptions 
from income tax as may be desirable to avoid any appre- 
ciable prejudice to "members of a foreign force" by reason 
of their service abroad, shall be agreed by the Parties and 
put into force as soon as possible ; 

(b) be entitled to temporary exemption from duty and taxes on 
private motor vehicles imported temporarily for their own 
personal use. There is no obligation under this Article to 
grant any exemption from taxes payable in respect of the 
use of the roads by motor vehicles. 

2. For the purpose of the levy of death duties on the estate of a 
deceased "member of a foreign force," the fact that he has been 
present in the "receiving State" shall not be regarded as creating a 
change of domicile or residence so far as he is concerned, and the 
tangible movable property of the deceased which is situated on the 
territory of the "receiving State" only by reason of his service there, 
shall be considered as not being situated on that territory. 

Article 13 

1. Save as provided expressly to the contrary in this Agreement, 
"members of a foreign force" are subject to the laws and regulations 
administered by the Customs Authorities of the "receiving State." 

In particular, the Customs Officers will have the right, under the 
general conditions laid down by the laws and regulations of the 
"receiving State," to search "members of a foreign force" and to 
examine their luggage and vehicles. 

2. The entry, departure and use of registered military vehicles 
shall be authorised free of all tax or duty on presentation of a trip- 
tyque in the form shown in Appendix D. These vehicles shall also 
be exempted from any tax payable in respect of the use of vehicles 
on the roads. 

3. Official documents under official seal will not be subject to Cus- 
toms inspection. Couriers carrying these documents, whatever their 
rank, must be in possession of an individual Movement Order, issued 
in accordance with Article 3. This Movement Order will show the 
number of despatches carried and certify that they contain only 
official documents. 

4. Reasonable quantities of provisions, supplies and other goods, 






340 

imported by the authorities of a "foreign force" for the exclusive 
use of that force, shall be exempt from Customs duties and all other 
duties and taxes payable on importation. This duty-free importa- 
tion shall be subject to the deposit, at the Customs Office, together 
with the Customs documents, of a certificate signed by an Officer 
authorised for that purpose. 

A specimen of this certificate is given in Appendix E. The list of 
the Officers authorised in each "foreign force" to sign the certificates, 
as well as specimens of their signatures and the stamps used, shall 
be sent to the Customs administration of the "receiving State." 

Imports made by the authorities of a "foreign force" other than 
for the exclusive use of their force, and imports effected personally 
by "members of a foreign force" are not, by reason of this Article, 
entitled to any exemption from taxes and duties or other conditions. 

5. Goods which have been imported duty-free under paragraph 4 
above — 

(i) can be re-exported to the country of origin of the goods or 
to the "sending State" provided that a certificate, issued in 
accordance with paragraph 4 above, is presented to the 
Customs Office. The Customs Authorities, however, may 
verify that the goods re-exported are as described in the 
certificate and have in fact been imported under the condi- 
tions of paragraph 4 ; 
(ii) cannot normally be disposed of in the "receiving State" 
by way of either sale or gift. However, in particular cases, 
such disposal may be authorised on conditions imposed by 
the Customs Authorities (for instance on payment of duty 
and tax and compliance with the requirements of the con- 
trols of trade and exchange) . 

6. Goods purchased in the "receiving State" can only be exported 
therefrom in accordance with the regulations in force in the "re- 
ceiving State." 

7. Special facilities for crossing frontiers shall be granted by the 
Customs Authorities to regularly constituted units or formations, 
provided that the Customs Authorities concerned have been duly 
notified sufficiently in advance. 

8. Special arrangements shall be made so that fuel oil and lubri- 
cants for use or service in military vehicles, aircraft and vessels, 
may be delivered free of all duties and taxes. 

Article 14 

1. The Customs or Fiscal Authorities of the "receiving State" 
may, as a condition of the grant of any Customs or Fiscal exemption 



341 

or concession provided for in this Agreement, require such conditions 
to be observed as they may deem necessary to prevent abuse. 

2. These authorities may refuse any exemption provided for by 
this Agreement in respect of the importation into the "receiving 
State" of articles grown, produced or manufactured in that State 
which have been exported therefrom without payment of, or upon 
repayment of, taxes or duties which would have been chargeable 
but for such exportation. 

Goods removed from a Customs warehouse shall be deemed to be 
imported if they were regarded as having been exported by reason 
of being deposited in the warehouse. 

Article 15 

1. In order to prevent offences against Customs and Fiscal Laws 
and Regulations of a "receiving State," the Customs and Fiscal 
Authorities of the "receiving State" and the Military Authorities of 
a "foreign force" will afford each other mutual assistance in the 
conduct of enquiries and the collection of evidence. 

2. The Military Authorities of the "foreign force" will render all 
assistance within their power to ensure that articles liable to seizure 
by or on behalf of the Customs or Fiscal Authorities of the "receiv- 
ing State" are handed to those authorities. 

3. "Members of a foreign force" committing offences against the 
Customs, Foreign Exchange and Fiscal Laws and Regulations of the 
"receiving State" will be dealt with under the normal rules of the 
"receiving State," but before any offender is prosecuted in a Court 
of Law, the facts shall be communicated to the competent military 
authority of the "foreign force." This authority will render all 
assistance within its power to ensure the payment of duties, taxes 
and penalties payable by "members of the foreign force;" 

4. Military vehicles and articles belonging to a "foreign force" 
seized in connection with an offence against the Customs and Fiscal 
Laws and Regulations will be handed over to the appropriate author- 
ities of the "foreign force" concerned. 

Article 16 

1. "Members of a foreign force" remain subject to the Foreign 
Exchange Regulations of the "sending State," and are also subject 
to the regulations of the "receiving State." 

2. The Foreign Exchange Authorities of the "sending" and the 
"receiving States" may, however, issue special regulations applicable 
to a "foreign force." 



342 

Article 17 

If any Party is involved in war, each of the Contracting Parties 
shall have the right to suspend immediately the application of any 
of the provisions of this Agreement so far as its own territory is 
concerned. 

If this right is exercised, the Parties will immediately consult with 
a view to agreeing on suitable provisions to replace the provisions 
suspended. 

Article 18 

All differences between the Contracting Parties relating to the 
interpretation or application of the Agreement shall be settled be- 
tween the Parties and there shall be no recourse to any outside 
jurisdiction. Except where express provision is made to the con- 
trary in the Agreement, the Parties will make use of the machinery 
of the Permanent Commission for the settlement of such differences. 

Article 19 

Any Party may at any time request that a meeting of representa- 
tives of all the Parties to this Agreement should be held to consider 
the revision of any Article of this Agreement. The request for a 
meeting shall be addressed to the Secretary- General of the Perma- 
nent Commission, who shall convoke a meeting within three months 
from the date of the receipt of this request. If at any such meeting 
agreement is reached on the revision of any provisions of this Agree- 
ment, a protocol containing the revised provisions shall be drawn 
up, and shall come into force as soon as it has been approved by 
all the Contracting Parties. 

Article 20 

The present Agreement shall be ratified. The Instruments of Rati- 
fication shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Secretary- 
General of the Permanent Commission. It shall enter into force one 
month after the receipt of the fifth ratification. 

Article 21 

1. After the expiry of four years from the entry into force of the 
Agreement, any Contracting Party may transmit a notice of Denun- 
ciation to the Secretary-General of the Permanent Commission. He 
shall immediately inform all the other Contracting Parties of the 
receipt of the notice of Denunciation and shall as soon as possible 



343 

convoke a conference of all the Contracting Parties to consider the 
situation. A notice of Denunciation shall take effect one year after 
the date on which it is deposited, unless it is withdrawn. 

2. The present Agreement shall remain in force until notice of 
Denunciation deposited in accordance with paragraph 1 of this 
Article has taken effect. 

In witness whereof the above-mentioned Plenipotentiaries have 
signed the present Agreement and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done this 21st day of December, 1949, in English and French, 
both texts being equally authoritative, in a single copy which will 
remain deposited in the archives of the Permanent Commission. The 
Secretary-General of the Permanent Commission shall transmit certi- 
fied copies of this Agreement to all signatory Governments. 

As soon as possible, a text of this Agreement in the Netherlands 
language will be prepared and as soon as this text has been agreed 
by all signatory Governments the text in the Netherlands language 
will also be authoritative. 

[There follow the signatures on behalf of Belgium, France, Lux- 
embourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.] 4 

D-D(50) 19 

Agreement on the Status of NATO, National Representatives and 
International Staff — Note by the United Kingdom Deputy (4 
August 1950) 

1. At their meeting on 25 July 1950, the Council Deputies agreed 
to set up a subcommittee, consisting of the Representatives of Bel- 
gium, France, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United 
States of America, to consider the question of the status of NATO 
Representatives and International Staff. 

2. At this meeting it was agreed, as a first step, to invite the 
Deputies to give an indication of the number of persons likely to be 
involved. A questionnaire to this effect was circulated accordingly 
to the Deputies. 

3. The Subcommittee has now had a further meeting to consider 
the replies to this questionnaire. At this meeting it was agreed that, 
although the number of persons involved was perhaps not very great 
at the moment, there was every likelihood that an increasing number 
of individuals would be required to be attached to the different Na- 
tional Delegations in London in the future. Furthermore, an appre- 






4 The Appendices referred to in Article 3, par. 2, and in Article 13, par. 2 and 
4, have been omitted. 



344 

ciable number of persons would no doubt be employed in London 
in connection with the various "international" sections of the Orga- 
nization — e.g., the Secretariat, the technical staff attached to the 
Chairman, the information section, etc. It was also desirable to pro- 
vide that the Deputies and their staff should be covered as regards 
immunities, etc., not only while in the United Kingdom but when 
visiting the other countries concerned. It was therefore agreed that 
the United Kingdom Representative should propose to the Deputies 
that the matter be dealt with on the following lines : — 

(1) In order to deal with the long-term problem an interna- 
tional agreement should be entered into by the countries 
which are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. This would 
follow the pattern of the agreement already concluded in 
similar cases — e.g., the General Convention on Immunities 
and Privileges for the Specialized Agencies of the United 
Nations. It would define in detail the privileges and immu- 
nities to be enjoyed by the Organization itself and by all 
persons connected with it in the various countries concerned. 
In this way, it would be possible, as far as the United 
Kingdom is concerned, to cover not only the Deputies and 
their immediate staff but the personnel serving as national 
representatives on bodies such as the Military Production 
and Supply Board or the Regional Planning Groups, and 
individuals attached to any "international" staffs which 
might be established in London. The L^nited Kingdom 
authorities would be glad to prepare the first draft of such 
an agreement, the details of which could then be discussed 
between appropriate representatives of the various Govern- 
ments. This procedure would, however, inevitably take some 
little time — all the more so since, before it can be finally 
put into effect as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. 
Parliamentary approval would be required. 

(2) In the meantime, therefore, and until the proposed agree- 
ment comes into force, the Deputies themselves and their 
immediate personal staff should be notified to the Foreign 
Office by their respective diplomatic representatives as mem- 
bers of the latters' staffs. This would enable such persons to 
enjoy full diplomatic privileges and immunities. The only 
persons to be notified in this way would as a rule be those 
persons working directly with the Deputy in connection with 
the work of the Committee of Deputies; and persons work- 
ing on the other bodies, such as the Defense Financial and 
Economic Committee or the Regional Groups, would not 









normally be included. It is anticipated, therefore, that only 
a comparatively small number of persons would be involved 
in respect of each country. As soon as the international 
agreement came into force, these persons would cease to be 
"on the diplomatic list." 
(3) In the case of persons other than those covered by para- 
graph (2) above, who arrive in this country to take up duty 
in connection with any part of the NATO before the coming 
into force of the projected international agreement, every 
effort will be made to ensure that they receive the maximum 
consideration possible consistent with the regulations in the 
matter of customs facilities, etc., at the time of their entry 
into the United Kingdom. 

D-D (51) 23 

Status of Forces Agreement — Draft Submitted by the United 
States Deputy (23 January 1951) 1 

Privileges and Immunities of Personnel of the 
North Atlantic Treaty Nations Subject to Mili- 
tary Law 2 

Preamble 

The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 
4th April, 1949, desiring to establish mutual privileges and immu- 
nities for personnel, who are subject to military law, of one mem- 
ber nation on duty in the territory of another member nation : 



Have agreed as follows: 



Article I 



In this Agreement the expression — 

(a) "contingent" means military personnel of the sending State 
and civilian personnel subject to military law of the sending 



1 The editor has substituted Roman numerals for Arabic in the enumeration 
of the Articles of this draft for two reasons: (a) the Articles in the final text, 
as well as most of the intermediate texts, of this Agreement bear Roman 
numerals; and (b) the use of Roman numerals makes it easier to distinguish 
this draft from the corresponding Articles in the Brussels Treaty Status 
Agreement. 

2Reference: MS-R(51) 1-4 (29-31 January 1951); MS(F)-R(51) 2 (13 
February 1951); MS(F)-R(51) 4-5 (14-15 February 1951); MS(J)-R(51) 
1-2 (8 February 1951). 



346 

State maintained by a Contracting Party on duty in the terri- 
tory of another Contracting Party, except nationals of the 
receiving State who are not also nationals of the sending State, 
and persons ordinarily resident in the receiving State who are 
not nationals of the sending State; 

(b) "sending State" means the Party maintaining the contingent; 

(c) "receiving State" means the Party in the territory of which 
the contingent is stationed or through which it is passing in 
transit; and 

(d) "dependent" means the spouse of a member of the contingent 
or a child of the member depending on him for support. 

Article II 

1. On the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of this Article, and 
subject to procedures established by the receiving State relating to 
entry and departure, the members of a contingent shall be exempt 
from passport and visa regulations and immigration inspection on 
entering or leaving the territory of any of the Contracting Parties, 
and shall also be exempt from the regulations on the registration and 
control of aliens but shall not be considered as acquiring any rights 
of permanent residence or domicile in the territories of the receiving 
State. 

2. The following documents only will be required in respect of 
members of a contingent. They must be presented on demand: 

(a) personal government identity card; and 

(b) individual or collective movement order in the English and 
French languages, issued by an appropriate agency of the 
sending State, certifying to the status of the individual as 
subject to military law, to the contingent of which he is a 
member, and signed by an appropriate representative of 
each receiving State. 

Article III 

The receiving State will accept as valid, without a driving test or 
fee, the driving permit or licence or military driving permit issued 
by the sending State or sub-division thereof to a member of its con- 
tingents, or to any of his dependents; or will, to the extent it is 
bound to the sending State by the provisions of the 1949 Geneva 
Convention on Road Traffic, apply those provisions in recognition of 
a driving permit issued by the sending State or sub-division thereof 
to a member of its contingents and any of his dependents. In lieu of 
the foregoing, the receiving State or sub-division thereof may issue 



347 

to any member of a contingent or any of his dependents, a driving 
permit or license, providing no driving test or fee is required. 

Article IV 

1. Members of regularly constituted military units and formations 
will normally wear uniform. They may, however, wear civilian dress ; 
the regulations governing the wearing of civilian dress will be those 
in force in the receiving State for its own forces. Kegularly con- 
stituted military units or formations of a contingent must be in 
uniform when crossing a frontier. 

2. Official vehicles shall carry, in addition to their registration 
number, a distinctive nationality mark. 

Article V 

1. Military members of a contingent may carry arms, on condition 
that this is authorised by their orders. 

2. In any case, military officers of a contingent are always author- 
ised to retain possession of their regulation personal weapons. 

Article VI 

1. It is the duty of members of a contingent to respect the laws of 
the receiving State and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with 
the spirit of the present Agreement, and in particular from any 
political activity in the receiving State. 

2. Members of a contingent shall be subject to the exclusive crim- 
inal jurisdiction of the sending State when charged with : 

(a) an offence solely against the property of a dependent of the 
sending State or against the person or property of another 
member of the contingent of the sending State; 

(b) an offence punishable by the applicable law of the sending 
State but not by the laws of the receiving State; 

(c) an offence relating to the security of the sending State but 
not to that of the receiving State. A security offence against 
a particular State shall include : 

(i) treason against that State; 

(ii) any offence of the nature of sabotage or espionage or 
against any law relating to official secrets of that State; 

(d) an offence arising out of any act done in the performance 
of official duty or pursuant to a lawful order issued by the 
competent authorities of the sending State. 

In particular cases, the sending State may waive any immunity 



348 

from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State which the members 
of its contingent may derive by virtue of this paragraph upon writ- 
ten notice of such waiver delivered to the appropriate authorities of 
the receiving State as soon as practicable. 

3. Except as provided above, a member of a contingent charged 
with having committed within the territory of a receiving State an 
offence punishable by the laws thereof and also by the laws of the 
sending State shall be subject to the jurisdiction of both States, pro- 
vided that the receiving State shall have the right to exercise juris- 
diction in the first instance. If the receiving State decides not to 
exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the sending 
State of its decision as soon as practicable. The authorities of the 
receiving State shall promptly notify the authorities of the sending 
State of the arrest of any member of a contingent. 

4. Whenever a member of a contingent is prosecuted in the courts 
of the receiving State he shall be entitled : 

(a) To a speedy and public trial; 

(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or 
charges made against him ; 

(c) To be confronted with the witnesses against him: 

(d) To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
favour ; 

(e) To defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own 
choice, or failing such a choice, the court shall appoint a 
qualified advocate or counsel to conduct his defence; 

(f) If he considers it necessary, to the services of a competent 
interpreter ; 

(g) To have a representative of his government present at any 
stage of the detention and trial by the receiving State. 

5. Subject to the provisions of this convention, the military author- 
ities of the sending State shall have the right to exercise within the 
receiving State all jurisdiction and control conferred on them by 
the laws of the sending State over all members of their contingents. 

6. Members of a contingent shall be immune from the civil juris- 
diction of the receiving State in matters arising from the perform- 
ance of their official duties, provided that in particular cases such 
immunity may be waived by the sending State. 

7. Upon the request of the sending State, the receiving State 
agrees to seek such legislation as the military authorities of both 
States agree is necessary to insure the adequate security and protec- 
tion within its territory of installations, equipment, property, records, 
and official information of any other Contracting Party and the 



349 

punishment of persons who may contravene such laws or regulations 
enacted for that purpose. 

8. The authorities of the receiving and sending States will assist 
each other in the arrest and handing over of offenders, the collection 
of evidence and the carrying out of all necessary investigations, in- 
cluding the seizure and in proper cases the handing over of exhibits 
and all objects connected with the offence. 

9. Regularly constituted military units or formations shall have 
the right to police any camps, establishments or other premises which 
they have occupied as a result of an agreement with the receiving 
State, under the following conditions : 

(a) The military police of the regularly constituted military 
units or formations may take all appropriate measures to 
ensure the maintenance of order in such installations. 

(b) Employment of the military police of a regularly constituted 
unit or formation outside its installation will be subject to 
arrangement with the authorities of the receiving State and 
in liaison with those authorities where such employment is 
necessary to maintain discipline and order among the mem- 
bers of such regularly constituted units or formations. 

10. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, it is mutually agreed 
that in time of hostilities in the North Atlantic area the sending 
State shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any 
offence which may be committed by a member of its contingent in 
the receiving State, except security offences as defined in paragraph 
2(c) above against the receiving State. 

Article VII 

1. Whenever a member of a contingent of one Contracting Party 
in the performance of his official duties incident to noncombatant 
activities causes damage to or loss or destruction of private property 
in the territory of another Contracting Party, or the injury or death 
of individual therein, the responsibility for paying compensation with 
respect to claims for such damage, loss, destruction, injury or death 
shall rest upon the receiving State in accordance with the provisions 
of this Article. 

2. Claims and suits shall be filed, considered and determined or 
adjudicated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the re- 
ceiving State with respect to claims or suits arising from the activ- 
ities of its own forces. The receiving State may settle any such claim 
or suit in its currency, and payment of the amount agreed upon in 
settlement or of any judgment obtained shall be made by the receiv- 



350 

ing State. Such payment, or the final adjudication by the competent 
tribunals of the receiving State, denying payment, shall be binding 
and conclusive upon the claimant and the Contracting Parties. The 
government of the receiving State will ensure the defence against 
claims and suits arising under this Article. 

3. Each Contracting Party waives all claims for damages to public 
property caused by a member of a contingent of any other Contract- 
ing Party wherever such claims for damage may arise. 

4. The provisions of this Article do not apply to injury or death 
suffered by members of an armed force of any Contracting Party 
while in the performance of their official duties. In such cases, no 
claim shall lie against the Contracting Party to whose contingent 
the person causing the injury or death belongs. The provisions of the 
paragraph shall not affect any benefits which the municipal law of 
the sending State may provide for members of its contingents. 

5. The costs incurred by the Contracting Parties in satisfying 
claims pursuant to the provisions of this Article shall be taken into 
full account in the assessment of each nation's contribution to the 
security of the North Atlantic area with a view to distributing as 
equitably as possible the total burden of collective defence measures 
under North Atlantic Treaty plans. 

Article VIII 

1. Members of a contingent and their dependents may purchase 
locally goods necessary for their own consumption and such services 
as they need under the same conditions as the nationals of the 
receiving State. 

2. Goods purchased locally which are required for the subsistence 
of a contingent will normally be purchased through the competent 
departments which purchase such goods for government personnel 
of the receiving State. In order to avoid such purchases having any 
adverse effect on the economy of the receiving State, the competent 
authorities of this State will indicate, when necessary, any articles 
the purchase of which should be restricted or forbidden. 

3. After agreement between the authorised representatives of the 
sending and receiving States, the competent authorities of the receiv- 
ing State will assume sole responsibility for making suitable arrange- 
ments to make available to a contingent the buildings and grounds, 
as well as such other facilities and services as it requires. These 
agreements and arrangements will be, as far as possible, in accord- 
ance with the regulations governing the accommodation of similar 
personnel of the receiving State. In the absence of a specific contract 
the laws of the receiving State shall determine the rights and obliga- 



351 

tions arising out of the occupation or use of the buildings, grounds 
or facilities. 

4. Local civilian labour requirements of a contingent will be satis- 
fied in the same way as those of the comparable authorities of the 
receiving State and with the assistance of those authorities through 
the employment exchanges. The conditions of employment and work, 
in particular wages, supplementary payments and conditions for the 
protection of workers shall be those laid down by the legislation of 
the receiving State. Such civilian workers employed by a contingent 
shall not be regarded for any purpose as being members of that 
contingent. 

5. When a contingent has at the place where it is stationed inade- 
quate medical or dental facilities, the members of that contingent 
and their dependents may receive medical and dental care, including 
hospitalisation, under the same conditions as comparable personnel 
of the receiving State. 

6. The receiving State will give the most favourable consideration 
to requests for the grant to members of a contingent of travelling 
facilities and concessions with regard to fares. These facilities and 
concessions will be the subject of special arrangements to be made 
between the Governments concerned. 

7. Subject to any general or particular financial arrangements 
between the Parties, payment in local currency for goods, accom- 
modation and services furnished under paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and, 
if necessary, 6, will be made promptly by the authorities of the 
contingent. 

8. The members of a contingent shall not by reason of this Article 
enjoy any exemption from taxes or duties relating to purchases and 
services chargeable under the fiscal regulations of the receiving State, 
except foods imported or services created by a sending State for the 
use of, or resale to, its own personnel. 

Article IX 

1. Members of a contingent who are neither nationals of nor resi- 
dent in the receiving State, and their dependents who are neither 
nationals of nor resident in the receiving State shall : 

(a) enjoy exemption from income tax levied in the receiving 
State on any income which they receive from sources out- 
side the receiving State and on compensation for official 
services. 

(b) be entitled to exemption from duty and taxes on private 
motor vehicles imported for their own personal use while 
on North Atlantic Treaty duty. There is no obligation under 



352 

this Article to grant any exemption from taxes payable in 
respect of the use of roads by private motor vehicles. Official 
vehicles shall be exempted from any tax payable in respect 
of the use of vehicles on public roads, 
(c) be entitled to exemption from personal property taxes of 
the receiving State. For this purpose personal property of a 
member of a contingent or their dependents shall not be 
deemed to be located or present in or to have a situs for 
taxation in the receiving State. 
In determining whether a member or his dependent is resident in 
the receiving State within the meaning of this paragraph, the pres- 
ence in the receiving State of such member or dependent resulting 
solely from the employment by the sending State shall not be con- 
sidered. 

2. For the purpose of the levy of death duties on the estate of a 
deceased member of a contingent or their dependents, the fact that 
he has been present in the receiving State shall not be regarded as 
creating a change of domicile or residence so far as he is concerned, 
and the tangible movable property of the deceased which is situated 
on the territory of the receiving State only by reason of his service 
there, shall be considered as not being situated on that territory. 

Article X 

1. The customs authorities of the receiving State shall have the 
right, under the general conditions laid down by the laws and reg- 
ulations of the receiving State, to search members of a contingent 
and their dependents and to examine their luggage and vehicles, and 
seize articles pursuant to such laws and regulations. 

2. The entry, departure and use of official vehicles shall be author- 
ized free of all tax or duty on presentation of a triptyque in the 
form shown in Appendix A. 

3. Official documents under official seal will not be subject to cus- 
toms inspection. Couriers carrying these documents, whatever their 
status, must be in possession of an individual movement order, issued 
in accordance with Article II. This movement order will show the 
number of despatches carried and certify that they contain only 
official documents. 

4. Provisions, supplies, household or other goods, imported as 
authorised by the sending State for the exclusive use of a contingent 
and its members and their dependents, shall be exempt from cus- 
toms duties and all other duties and taxes payable on importation. 
This duty-free importation shall be subject to the deposit, at the 
customs office, together with the customs document, of a certificate 



353 

signed by an official authorised for that purpose. A specimen of this 
certificate is given in Appendix B. The list of the officials authorised 
in each contingent to sign the certificates as well as specimens of 
their signatures and the stamps used, shall be sent to the customs 
administration of the receiving State. 

5. Goods which have been imported duty-free under paragraph 4 
above : 

(a) can be re-exported to the country of origin of the goods or 
to the sending State provided that a certificate, issued in 
accordance with paragraph 4 above, is presented to the 
customs office : the customs authorities, however, may verify 
that goods re-exported are as described in the certificate 
and have in fact been imported under the conditions of 
paragraph 4. 

(b) cannot normally be disposed of in the receiving State by 
way of either sale or gift: however, in particular cases such 
disposal may be authorised on conditions imposed by the 
customs authorities (for instance, on payment of duty and 
tax and compliance with the requirements of the controls 
of trade and exchange) . 

6. Goods purchased in the receiving State can only be exported 
therefrom in accordance with the regulations in force in the receiv- 
ing State. 

7. Special arrangements for crossing frontiers shall be granted by 
the customs authorities to regularly constituted units or formations, 
provided that the customs authorities concerned have been duly noti- 
fied in advance. 

8. Special arrangements shall be made by the receiving State so 
that fuel oil and lubricants for use or service in contingent official 
vehicles, aircraft and vessels, may be delivered free of all duties 
and taxes. 

Article XI 

1. The customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State may as 
a condition of the grant of any customs or fiscal exemption or con- 
cession provided for in this Agreement, require such conditions to be 
observed as they may deem necessary to prevent abuse. 

2. These authorities may refuse any exemption provided for by 
this Agreement in respect of the importation into the receiving State 
of articles grown, produced or manufactured in that State which 
have been exported therefrom without payment of, or upon repay- 
ment of, taxes or duties which would have been chargeable but for 
such exportation. Goods removed from a customs warehouse shall be 



354 

deemed to be imported if they were regarded as having been exported 
by reason of being deposited in the warehouse. 

Article XII 

1. In order to prevent offences against customs and fiscal laws and 
regulations of a receiving State, the customs and fiscal authorities of 
the receiving State and the authorities of a contingent will afford 
each other mutual assistance in the conduct of enquiries and the col- 
lection of evidence. 

2. Authorities of a contingent will render all assistance within 
their power to ensure that articles liable to seizure by or on behalf 
of the customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State are handed 
to those authorities. 

3. This authority will render all assistance within its power to 
ensure the payment of duties, taxes and penalties payable by mem- 
bers of the contingent. 

Article XIII 

1. Members of a contingent shall comply with the foreign exchange 
regulations of the sending State and the receiving State. 

2. The foreign exchange authorities of the sending and the receiv- 
ing States may issue special regulations applicable to a foreign con- 
tingent and their dependents. 

Article XIV 

If any party is involved in hostilities in the North Atlantic area, 
each of the Contracting Parties shall have the right, so far as its 
own territory is concerned, to suspend 60 days after due notification 
the application of any of the provisions of this Agreement. If this 
right is exercised, the Parties will immediately consult with a view 
to agreeing on suitable provisions to replace the provisions suspended. 

Article XV 

All differences between the Contracting Parties relating to the 
interpretation or application of the Agreement shall be settled be- 
tween the Parties and there shall be no recourse to any outside juris- 
diction. Except where express provision is made to the contrary in 
the Agreement, the Parties will make use of the machinery of the 
North Atlantic Council for the settlement of such differences. 

Article XVI 

Any Party may at any time request that a meeting of representa- 
tives of all the Parties to this Agreement should be held to consider 



355 

the revision of any Article of this Agreement. The request for a 
meeting shall be addressed to the Secretary, North Atlantic Council, 
who shall request the convocation of a meeting within three months 
from the date of the receipt of this request. 

Article XVII 

1. The present Agreement shall be ratified and the instruments of 
ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America, which shall notify each sig- 
natory State of the date of deposit thereof. 

2. The present Agreement shall, when instruments of ratification 
have been deposited by all the signatory States, come into force on 
the thirtieth day after the deposit of the final instrument of rati- 
fication. 

3. The present Agreement shall be open to accession on behalf of 
any State which accedes to the North Atlantic Treaty. Accession shall 
be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Gov- 
ernment of the United States of America, which shall notify each 
signatory and acceding State of the date of deposit thereof. In 
respect of any State on behalf of which an instrument of accession 
is deposited, the present Agreement shall come into force thirty days 
after the date of the deposit of such instrument. 

Article XVIII 

1. The present Agreement may be denounced by any Contracting 
Party after the expiration of a period of four years from the date 
on which the Agreement came into force. 

2. The denunciation of the Agreement by any Contracting Party 
shall be effected by a written notification addressed by that Party 
to the Government of the United States of America, which shall 
notify all the other Contracting Parties of each such notification and 
the date of receipt thereof. 

3. The denunciation shall take effect one year after the receipt of 
the notification by the Government of the United States of America. 
After the expiration of this period of one year, the Agreement shall 
cease to be in force as regards the Party which denounces it, but 
shall continue in force for the remaining Parties. 

In witness whereof the" undersigned, being duly authorised by 
their respective Governments, have signed the present Agreement. 

Done at Washington this day of , in the 

English and French languages, each equally authentic, in a single 



356 

original which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government 
of the United States of America. The Government of the United 
States of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to all the 
signatory and acceding States. 

MS-D(51) 1 

Status of Forces Agreement — Comparison between the Status of 
the Armed Forces of the Brussels Treaty Powers and the United 
States Draft (30 January 1951) 

1. In conformity with the decision taken by the Working Group 
at its meeting on Monday, 29 January, the Secretary has the honor 
to transmit herewith : 

(a) the articles of the draft submitted by the United States Dele- 
gation, regrouped under various specialized headings; 

(b) a comparative table of the articles of the Agreement on the 
Status of the Armed Forces of the Brussels Treaty Powers 1 
and those of the draft submitted by the United States Dele- 
gation. 2 

2. Regrouping of Articles by subjects. 

(a) Articles dealing with general questions — Preamble; Articles 
I, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII and XVIII. 

(b) Articles dealing with juridical questions — Articles II, III. 
VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII. 

(c) Articles dealing with financial questions — Articles IV, VII, 
VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and XIII. 

(d) Articles dealing with military questions — Articles II (2), IV 
and V. 

3. Comparison between the Agreement on the Status of the Armed 
Forces of the Brussels Treaty Powers and the draft submitted by the 
United States Delegation. 

A table comparing the Agreement and the Draft is annexed; it 
has been drawn up from the standpoint of the United States draft. 
Opposite each article of the United States draft, appearing in the 
first column, there stands in the second column the corresponding 
article of the Status of the Armed Forces of the Brussels Treaty 
Powers. On account of the great number of differences between the 
two documents, it has not been possible to reproduce them verbatim ; 
they are however briefly described in the third column. 



iCmd. 7868 (21 December 1949). 
2D-D(51) 23 (23 January 1951) 



357 

4. This comparative table shows that a number of articles or sec- 
tions of articles which appear in the Status of the Armed Forces of 
the Brussels Treaty Powers have been omitted in the draft submitted 
by the United States Delegation, namely: art. 1(d) ; art. 2; art, 3(2), 
three last paragraphs; art. 6(1); art. 7(3), second paragraph; art. 
7(4) ; art. 7(5), second sentence of (b) and (c) ; art. 8(2) (a) ; art. 
8(4) ; art. 8(5) ; art. 8(6) ; art. 8(7) ; art. 9; art, 10; art. 12(1) (a), 
second sentence; art. 13(1), first paragraph; art. 13(4), third para- 
graph; art. 15(3), first sentence; art. 15(4) ; art. 19, third sentence, 

5. The following articles of the draft are similar or identical to 
those of the Status of the Armed Forces of the Brussels Treaty 
Powers: art. I (b) and (c) ; beginning of art. II, 1; art. IV, 1 and 2; 
art. V, 1 and 2; art. VI, 1, 5 and 8; art. VII, 3; art. VIII, 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, 6 and 7; art. X; art. XI; art. XII; art. XIII; art. XV; art. 
XVI ; art. XVII, 1 and 2 ; art. XVIII ; Annex B. 

ANNEX 

Comparison between the Agreement on the Status of the Members 
of the Armed Forces of the Brussels Treaty Powers and the 
Draft submitted by the United States Delegation 3 

Draft Agreement Comment 

Preamble Preamble The preamble of the Agreement is 

drafted in the same wording as 
the Brussels Treaty itself, where- 
as the preamble of the draft has 
been shortened. 



Art. 1(a) Art. 1(a) The term "contingent" is used in- 

stead of "foreign force" ; its 
definition includes military per- 
sonnel and civilian personnel sub- 
ject to the military law of the 
sending State, except certain 
categories of persons expressly 
named. The expression "foreign 
force" is reserved exclusively for 
the "armed forces," but may in- 
clude non-combatant units. 



3 The word "Agreement" will be used for the articles of the Status of Armed 
Forces of the Brussels Treaty Powers ; the word "Draft" for the articles of the 
draft submitted by the United States Delegation [footnote in original]. 



358 



Draft 


Agreement 


Comment 


Art. 1(b) 


Art. 1(b) 


Identical. 


Art. 1(c) 


Art. 1(c) 


Identical. 


Art. 1(d) 




Entirely new definitio 



ents not mentioned in the Agree- 
ment. 

Art. 1(d) Not repeated in the draft. 

Art. 2 Not repeated in the draft. 



Art. 11(1) Art. 3(1) Identical as regards passport and 

visa regulations and certain 
regulations on the registration 
and control of aliens ; the last 
clause in the draft is new, refer- 
ring to the problems of perma- 
nent residence or domicile. 

Art. 11(2) Art. 3(2) Relating to the documents required 

in respect of members of a "con- 
tingent" — enumeration of docu- 
ments : different, no reference 
being made in the draft to the 
trilingual identity card men- 
tioned in the Agreement. 

Art. 3(2) The last three paragraphs are not 

repeated in the draft. 

Art. Ill Art. 4 Changes as regards the issue of 

driving permits in the receiving 
State, no tax or test being re- 
quired. 

Art. IV (1) Art. 5(1) Similar. 

Art. IV (2) Art. 5(2) Similar. 

Art. 6(1) Not repeated in the draft. 

Art. V(l) Art. 6(2) Similar. 

Art. V(2) Art. 6(3) Identical. 

Art. VI (1) Art. 7(1) Identical. 

Art. VI (2) Art. 7(2) Different. 



359 

Draft Agreement Comment 

Art. VI (3) Art. 7(2) Different. 

Art. VI (4) Entirely new. 

Art. VI (5) Art. 7(2), last par. Similar. 

Art. VI (6) Entirely new. 

Art. VI (7) Entirely new. 

Art. VI (8) Art. 7(3) Similar to the first paragraph of 

7(3). 

Art. 7(3), 2nd par. Not repeated in the draft. 

Art. 7(4) Not repeated in the draft. 

Art. VI (9), 1st par. Art. 7(5) (a) Similar. 

Art. VI (9) (a) Art. 7(5) (b) First sentence similar; second sen- 

tence not repeated. 

Art, 7(5) (c) Not repeated in draft. 

Art. VI (9) (b) Art. 7(5) (d) Different. 

Art. VI (10) Entirely new. 

Art. VII (1) Art. 8(1), 1st par. Different. 

Art. VII(2) Art. 8(1), 2nd par. Different. 

Art. 8(2) (a) Not repeated in draft. 

Art. VII(3) Art.8(2)(b) Different. 

Art. VII (4) Art. 8(2) (b) Different. 

Art. VII (5) Art. 8(3) Different. 

Art. 8(4) Not repeated in draft. 

Art. 8(5) Not repeated in draft. 

Art. 8(6) Not repeated in draft. 

Art. 8(7) Not repeated in draft. 

Art. 9 Not repeated in draft. 



360 



Draft 



Art. VIII (1) 

Art. VIII (2) 
Art. VIII (3) 

Ait. VIII (4) 
Art. VIII (5) 

Art. VIII (6) 

Art. VIII (7) 
Art. VIII (8) 



Art. VIII (9), 
1st par. 

Art. 1(a) 



Art. 1(b) 

Art. 1(c) 

Art. II 
Art. X(l) 



Art. X(2) 
Art. X(3) 
Art. X(4) 



Agreement 
Art. 10 

Art. 11(1) 

Art. 11(2) 
Art. 11(3) 

Art. 11(4) 
Art. 11(5) 

Art. 11(6) 

Art. 11(7) 
Art. 11(8) 

Art. 12(1) 
Art. 1(a) 

Art. 1(b) 

Art. 12(2) 

Art. 13(1), 2nd par 



Art. 13(2) 
Art. 13(3) 
Art. 13(4) 



Comment 
Not repeated in draft. 

Identical, except for specific refer- 
ence to dependents. 

Similar. 

Similar ; slight changes in the last 
sentence. 

Similar. 

Identical, except for a specific 
reference to dependents. 

Similar ; the Agreement restricts 
the facilities to the railways. 

Similar. 

Different : the draft provides for 
certain exemptions from import 
duties. 

Different. 



Different : last sentence of the 
Agreement is not repeated in the 
draft. 

Similar, except for last sentence. 

Entirely new. 

Identical. 

Similar : in addition provides that 
custom authorities shall have the 
right of seizure. The first para- 
graph is not repeated in the 
draft. 

Different. 

Identical. 

Similar in the first and second 
paragraphs ; specific reference to 
dependents ; the third paragraph 
is not repeated in the draft. 



361 



Draft 
Art. X(5), 1st par 

Art. X(5)(a) 
Art. X(5) (b) 
Art. X(6) 
Art. X(7) 
Art. X(8) 
Art. XI (1) 
Art. XI (2) 
Art. XII (1) 
Art. XII (2) 
Art. XII (3) 

Art. XIII (1) 
Art. XIII (2) 

Art. XIV 
Art. XV 



Agreement 

, 1st par. 



Art. XVI 



Art. XVII (1) 



Art. 13(5 

Art. 13(5 

Art. 13(5 

Art. 13(6 

Art. 13(7 

Art. 13(8 

Art. 14(1 

Art. 14(2 

Art. 15(1 

Art. 15(2 

Art. 15(3 
sentence 

Art. 16(1 

Art. 1G(2 

Art. 17 
Art. 18 



(i) 
(ii) 



, last 



Art. 19, last two 
sentences 



Art. 20, first two 
sentences 



Comment 
Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical. 

Identical : the first sentence is not 
repeated in the draft. 

Similar. 

Similar, but with specific reference 
to dependents. 

Difference between the terms "hos- 
tilities" and "war" ; provides for 
an interval of sixty days. 

Similar : the Agreement provides 
for recourse to the Brussels 
Treaty Permanent Commission, 
which corresponds to the Coun- 
cil Deputies of the Atlantic Pact, 
whereas the draft envisages re- 
course to the North Atlantic 
Council itself. 

Same comment as for the preced- 
ing article concerning the Coun- 
cil Deputies. The third sentence 
is not repeated in the draft. 

Similar : provides that the instru- 
ments of ratification shall be de- 
posited with the Government of 
the United States, instead of 
with the Secretary-General of 
the Treaty. 



362 



Draft 
Art. XVII (2) 

Art. XVII (3) 
Art. XVIII (1-3) 

Annex A 
Annex B 



Agreement 

Art. 20, last 
sentence 



Art. 21(1-2) 
Annex A, B, C 
Annex D 
Annex E 



Comment 



Similar. 



Entirely new. 

Similar. 

Not repeated in draft. 

Different. 

Identical. 



MS-D(51) 2 

Status of Forces Agreement — Proposed Redraft of Article VI 
(6 February 1951) 1 

Note by the Secretary 

The United States Representative has been in consultation with the 
United Kingdom and French Representatives regarding Article VI, 
and the three Representatives, without committing their several 
Governments, propose the following redraft of Article VI as a basis 
for discussion by the Working Group (Juridical Subcommittee) at 
the meeting on Thursday, 8 February 1951. 

The redraft is substantially a rearrangement of the United States 
draft, with some amendments suggested by the other Representatives. 
It omits paragraph 6 of the United States draft with the thought 
that civil jurisdiction could more properly be handled under Article 
VII. It also uses the word "forces," instead of the word "contingent" 
used in the United States draft, and it does not attempt to cover 
civilians accompanying the forces, which is to be the subject of 
further consideration. 

Article VI 

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the military authorities 
of the sending State shall have the right to exercise within the receiv- 
ing State all jurisdiction and control conferred on them by the laws 
of the sending State over all members of their forces abroad. 

2. The military authorities of the sending State shall have exclusive 
criminal jurisdiction over members of their forces with respect to 



i Previous reference: Article VI of D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). Refer 
ence: MS(J)-R(51) 2 (8 February 1951). 



363 

offences punishable by the law of the sending State but not by the 
laws of the receiving State, including offences relating to the security 
of the sending State, but not to that of the receiving State. A security 
offence against a particular State shall include 

(a) treason against the State; 

(b) Sabotage, espionage or violations of any law relating to 
official secrets of that State. 

3. It is the duty of the forces of the sending State to respect the 
laws of the receiving State, and to abstain from any activity incon- 
sistent with the spirit of the present Agreement, and in particular, 
from any political activity in the receiving State. 

4. The authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction 
over the members of a foreign force with respect to offences com- 
mitted within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by 
the law of that State, except that the military authorities of the 
sending State and the authorities of the receiving State shall have 
concurrent jurisdiction over the members of a foreign force with 
respect to offences committed within the territory of a receiving State 
and punishable by the laws of both States, provided that in the case of 
the following offences, the military authorities of the sending State 
shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction : 

(a) Offences solely against the property of the sending State, or 
offences against the person, property or a dependent of 
another member of the forces of the sending State; 

(b) Offences arising out of any act done in the performance of 
official duty, or pursuant to a lawful order issued by the 
competent authorities of the sending State. 

In particular cases, the sending State may waive the primary right 
of criminal jurisdiction by written notice of such waiver delivered to 
the appropriate authorities of the receiving State as soon as possible. 

5. In the case of any other offence in which the military authorities 
of the sending State and the authorities of the receiving shall have 
concurrent jurisdiction, the receiving State shall have the primary 
right to exercise jurisdiction. The authorities of the receiving State 
shall promptly notify the military authorities of the sending State 
of the arrest of any member of the forces of the sending State, and if 
the receiving State decides not to exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify 
the military authorities of the sending State as soon as practicable. 

6. The authorities of the receiving and sending States will assist 
each other in the arrest of offenders in the territory of the receiving 
State and in handing them over to the authority which is to exercise 
jurisdiction in accordance with the above, as well as in the collection 
of evidence and the carrying out of all necessary investigations, the 



364 

seizure and in proper cases handing over of exhibits and all objects 
connected with the offence. 

7. Whenever a member of a foreign force is prosecuted in the 
courts of a receiving State, he shall be entitled : 

(a) to a speedy and public trial; 

(b) to be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or 
charges made against him ; 

(c) to be confronted with the witnesses against him ; 

(d) to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
favour ; 

(e) to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own 
choice, or failing such choice, appointed by the court to con- 
duct his defence ; 

(f) if he considers it necessary, to the services of a competent 
interpreter ; 

(g) to have a representative of his Government present at any 
stage of his detention or trial, except during the preliminary 
examination (instruction) or grand jury proceeding. 

8. Regularly constituted military units or formations of foreign 
forces shall have the right to police any camps, establishments or 
other premises which they have occupied as the result of an agree- 
ment with the receiving State, under the following conditions : 

(a) The military police of the units or formations may take all 
appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance of order on 
such premises; 

(b) Employment of such military police outside of its premises 
will be subject to arrangement with the authorities of the 
receiving State and in liaison with those authorities, where 
such employment is necessary to maintain discipline and 
order among the members of such units or formations. 

9. Upon the request of the sending State, the receiving State will 
seek such legislation as the authorities of both States agree is neces- 
sary to ensure the adequate security and protection within its ter- 
ritory of installations, equipment, property, records and official infor- 
mation of the sending State, and the punishment of persons who may 
contravene such laws enacted for that purpose. 

10. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, in time of hostilities 
in the North Atlantic area the sending State shall have the right to 
denounce paragraph 5 of this Article and to have the primary right 
to exercise criminal jurisdiction over members of its forces com- 
mitting any offence within a receiving State except a security offence 
as defined in paragraph 2 committed against the receiving State. 



365 

MS-D(51) 3 

Status of Forces Agreement — United Kingdom Note on the Defini- 
tion of "Contingent" in the Draft (7 February 1951) * 

Civilians (Article I and generally) 

The proposal to widen the definition of an armed force or "con- 
tingent" of a sending State so as to include any category of civilians 
not entitled to wear uniform raises serious difficulties for the follow- 
ing reasons. 

It is recognized that a certain number of civilians employed by the 
sending State normally accompany an armed force of that State and 
are necessary for its operational efficiency. But such civilians are few 
in number in relation to the total number of the armed force. They 
usually move either as individuals or in small parties, and while they 
are in the receiving State they are not subject to the same close 
discipline and control as the uniformed members of the force they 
accompany. It can hardly be urged that, if they are excluded from 
the definition of the force of a sending State, they would in practice 
be subject to interference, either when entering, remaining in or 
departing from a receiving State, to an extent that would prevent 
them from performing efficiently their official duties. 

Moreover, if a limited class of civilians were included in the gen- 
eral definition of a "force," it would only be possible to identify in- 
dividuals by means of a certificate, issued by the sending State, to be 
carried by each entitled person. The duties performed by such 
civilians are so various in character that it would hardly be possible 
to specify them in the Agreement. In the case of States whose cen- 
tral administration was unimpaired, the control of issue of personal 
certificates for such civilians might be satisfactorily maintained. But 
if the administration of a sending State were under severe stress, 
even before the outbreak of hostilities, with the result that the ma- 
chinery for the issue of personal certificates became impaired, there 
would be a risk that such certificates might be obtained by persons 
whose presence in the receiving State would imperil the security of 
that State and of NATO forces for the time being in it. 

For the above reasons it is considered that, in order to reach quickly 
the fullest measure of agreement between Contracting Parties, the 
definition of a "force" should not be widened to include any category 
of civilian not entitled to wear uniform. 

Nevertheless, the United Kingdom Government are considering 



i Reference: MS(J)-R(51) 1, par. 5 (8 February 1951). 



366 

whether, for the purpose of certain Articles governing fiscal conces- 
sions, a limited class of civilians accompanying the armed forces can 
be covered, provided that a satisfactory definition of the class can be 
arrived at. A separate definition of the class might have to be devised 
for each Article affected, as considerations differ according to the 
kind of concession in view. 



MS-D(51) 4 

Status of Forces Agreement — United States Redraft of Article VII 
(9 February 1951) 1 

Article VII 

1. Each Contracting Party waives all claims for damages to any 
property owned by such Contracting Party and used by its Service 
Ministries (Army, Navy or Air Force) or its forces, caused by a 
member of the forces of any other Contracting Party, wherever such 
claims for damage may arise. 

2. No action shall lie against any Contracting Party or any member 
of its forces for injury or death suffered by any member of the forces 
of any Contracting Party while in the performance of his official 
duties. The provisions of this paragraph shall not affect any benefits 
which the municipal law of any State may provide for members of 
its forces. 

3. Subject to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, civil 
actions brought against a member of the forces of a sending State 
shall be heard and determined by the courts of the receiving State, 
except that members of the forces of a sending State shall be immune 
from the civil jurisdiction of the receiving State in matters arising 
from the performance of their official duties, and provided that in 
particular cases such immunity may be waived by the sending State. 

4. Claims against members of the forces of a sending State arising 
out of acts done in the performance of their official duties incident 
to non-combatant activities, and causing damage to or loss or destruc- 
tion of the property of private persons in the territory of the receiv- 
ing State, or the injury or death of individuals therein, shall be 
settled by the receiving State in accordance with the following 
provisions : 

(a) Claims shall be filed, considered and determined or adjudi- 



i Previous reference: Article VII of D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). Refer- 
ence: this text was never the subject of formal discussion by the Working 
Group, having been first superseded by MS-D(51) 4(R) (12 February 1951). 



367 

cated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the 
receiving State with respect to claims arising from the 
activities of its own armed forces. The receiving State may 
settle any such claim in its own currency, and payment of 
the amount agreed upon shall be made by the receiving 
State. Such payment, or the final adjudication of the com- 
petent tribunals of the receiving State denying payment, 
shall be binding and conclusive upon the claimant and the 
Contracting Parties. The Government of the receiving State 
will ensure the defence against claims arising under this 
Article, 
(b) The cost incurred by the Contracting Parties in satisfying 
claims pursuant to the preceding sub-paragraph shall be 
taken into full account in the assessment from time to time 
of each nation's contributions to the security of the North 
Atlantic area, with a view to distributing as equitably as 
possible the total burden of defence measures under North 
Atlantic Treaty plans. In the meantime, if the cost incurred 
by any particular receiving State in the settlement of claims 
against the forces of any sending State becomes unduly 
burdensome or disproportionate, either because of the small- 
ness of size of the receiving State, or for any other reason, 
such cost may, at the request of the receiving State, become 
the subject of bilateral negotiation between the two Parties 
for a contribution by the sending State to the payment of 
such cost. 
5. Claims against members of the forces of a sending State arising 
out of tortious acts or omissions not relating to the performance of 
their official duties may be dealt with in the following manner. The 
Government of the receiving State may consider the claim and assess 
compensation to the claimant in a fair and just manner, taking into 
account all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of 
the injured person, and may prepare a report on the matter. The 
report may be delivered to the authorities of the sending State, who 
will then decide without delay whether they will offer an ex gratia 
payment, and if so, of what amount. If an offer of ex gratia payment 
is made, and accepted by the claimant in full satisfaction of his claim, 
the authorities of the sending State will make the payment them- 
selves and inform the Government of the receiving: State of their 
decision and of the sum paid. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect 
the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving State to entertain an 
action against a member of the forces of a sending State when unless 
there has been payment in full satisfaction of the claim. 



368 

MS-D(51) 4(R) 

Status of Forces Agreement — Revised United States Redraft of 
Article VII (12 February 1951) 1 

Article VII 

1. Each Contracting Party waives all claims for damages to any 
property owned by such Contracting Party and used by its Service 
Ministries (and, sea or air armed services) including their public 
vessels, caused by a member of the armed services of any other Con- 
tracting Party or by the operation of a public vessel of any other 
Contracting Party, wherever such claims for damage may arise. The 
representations of the Government involved as to what vessels are its 
public vessels and as to what constitutes its public property shall be 
conclusive. 

2. No action shall lie against any Contracting Party or any member 
of its armed services for injury or death suffered by any member of 
the armed services of any Contracting Party while in the perform- 
ance of his official duties. The provisions of this paragraph shall not 
affect any benefits which the municipal law of any State may provide 
for members of its armed services. 

3. Subject to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, civil 
actions brought against a member of the force or civilian component 
of a sending State shall be heard and determined by the courts of the 
receiving State, except that members of the force or of a civilian 
component of a sending State shall be immune from the civil juris- 
diction of the receiving State in matters arising from the perform- 
ance of their official duties, and provided that in particular cases such 
immunity may be waived by the sending State. 

4. Claims against members of the forces of a sending State arising 
out of acts done in performance of their official duties incident to 
non-combatant activities, and causing damage to or loss or destruc- 
tion of the property of private persons in the territory of the receiv- 
ing State, or the injury or death of individuals therein, shall be 
settled by the receiving State in accordance with the following pro- 
visions : 



i Previous references: D-D (51) 23, Article VII (23 January 1951); MS-D 
(51) 4 (9 February 1951). References: MS(F)-R(51) 1-2 (13 February 1951) ; 
MS(J)-R(51) 3 (15 February 1951). 



369 

(a) Claims shall be filed, considered and determined or adjudi- 
cated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the 
receiving State with respect to claims arising from the 
activities of its own armed forces. The receiving State may 
settle any such claim in its currency, and payment of the 
amount agreed upon shall be made by the receiving State. 
Such payment, or the final adjudication of the competent 
tribunals of the receiving State denying payment, shall be 
binding and conclusive upon the claimant and the Contract- 
ing Parties. The Government of the sending State and the 
receiving State will cooperate in the procurement of evidence 
for a fair hearing and disposition of claims arising under 
this Article. 

(b) The cost incurred by the Contracting Parties in satisfying 
claims pursuant to the preceding sub-paragraph shall be 
taken into full account in the assessment from time to time 
of each nation's contribution to the security of the North 
Atlantic area, with a view to distributing as equitably as 
possible the total burden of defence measures under North 
Atlantic Treaty plans. In the meantime, if the cost incurred 
by any particular receiving State in the settlement of claims 
against the forces of any sending State becomes unduly bur- 
densome or disproportionate, such cost may, at the request of 
the receiving State, become the subject of bilateral negotia- 
tion between the two Parties for a contribution by the send- 
ing State to the payment of such cost. 

5. Claims against members of the force of a sending State arising 
out of tortious acts or omissions not relating to the performance of 
their official duties may be dealt with in the following manner. The 
Government of the receiving State may consider the claim and assess 
compensation to the claimant in a fair and just manner, taking into 
account all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of 
the injured person, and may prepare a report on the matter. The 
report may be delivered to the authorities of the sending State, who 
will then decide without delay whether they Avill offer an ex gratia 
payment, and if so, of what amount. If an offer of ex gratia payment 
is made, and accepted by the claimant in full satisfaction of his claim, 
the authorities of the sending State will make the payment them- 
selves and inform the Government of the receiving State of their 
decision and of the sum paid. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect 
the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving State to entertain an 
action against a member of the force of a sending State unless and 
until there has been payment in full satisfaction of the claim. 



370 

MS-D(51) 5 

Status of Forces Agreement — Redraft of Articles I to VI (12 
February 1951) 1 

Preamble 

The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 
4th April, 1949, desiring to establish the status of the force of one 
Party maintained in the territory of another Party ; 

Have agreed as follows : 

Article I 

In this Agreement the expression : 

(a) "force" means any personnel belonging to the land, sea or air 
armed services of one Contracting Party, maintained by it in 
the territory of another Contracting Party ; 

(b) "civilian component" means any civilian personnel accompany- 
ing a force who are in the employ of an armed service of a 
Contracting Party, and who are not nationals of, or ordinarily 
resident in, the State in which the force is maintained; 

(c) "dependent" means the spouse of a member of a force or of a 
civilian component, or a child of such member depending on 
him or her for support ; 

(d) "sending State" means the Contracting Party maintaining the 
force ; 

(e) "receiving State" means the Contracting Party in the territory 
of which the force is maintained, whether it be stationed there 
or passing in transit ; 

(f) "military authorities of the sending State" means those au- 
thorities of a sending State who are empowered by its law to 
enforce the military law of that State with respect to members 
of its forces or civilian components. 

Article II 

1. On the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of this Article, and 
subject to procedures established by the receiving State relating to 
entry and departure, the members of a force or civilian component 
shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations and immigration 



i Previous references: D-D (51) 23, Articles I- VI (23 January 1951) ; MS-D 
(51) 2, Article VI (6 February 1951). References: MS(F)-R(51) 1-6 (13-16 
February 1951); MS(J)-R(51) 1-5 (8-17 February 1951); in all of these 
Summary Records, the new definition of "force" and "civilian component" in 
MS-D (51) 5, Article I, forms the basis for discussion of other Articles. 



371 

inspection on entering or leaving the territory of a receiving State, 
and shall also be exempt from the regulations on the registration and 
control of aliens, but shall not be considered as acquiring any rights 
of permanent residence or domicile in the territories of the receiving 
State. 

2. The following documents only will be required in respect of 
members of a force or civilian component. They must be presented 
on demand : 

(a) personal government identity card, showing name (surname 
first), date of birth, rank and number (if any), service, and 
photograph, and in the case of a member of a civilian com- 
ponent, also the place of birth and the ordinary residence 
and the nationality of the member; 

(b) individual or collective movement order, in the language of 
the sending State, and in the English and French languages, 
issued by an appropriate agency of the sending State, certi- 
fying to the status of the individual as a member of a force 
or of a civilian component, or to the status of an organized 
unit as a force or civilian component, and to the movement 
ordered, which may be countersigned by an appropriate 
representative of the receiving State. 

Article III 

The receiving State will accept as valid, without a driving test or 
fee, the driving permit or licence or military driving permit issued 
by the sending State or a sub-division thereof to a member of a force 
or of a civilian component ; or will, to the extent that it is bound to 
the sending State by the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention 
on Road Traffic, apply those provisions in recognition of a driving 
permit issued by the sending State or sub-division thereof to a mem- 
ber of its force or civilian component. In lieu of the foregoing the 
receiving State or sub-division thereof may issue a driving permit 
or licence to any member of a force or civilian component who holds a 
driving permit or licence issued by the sending State or a sub-division 
thereof, provided that no driving test is required. 

Article IV 

1. Members of a force will normally wear uniform. Regularly con- 
stituted units or formations of a force must be in uniform when 
crossing a frontier. 

2. Service vehicles of a force shall carry, in addition to their regis- 
tration number, a distinctive nationality mark. 



372 

Article V 

1. Members of a force may carry arms, on condition that it is 
authorised by their orders. 

2. In any case, officers of a force are always authorised to retain 
possession of their regulation personal weapons. 

Article VI 

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the military authori- 
ties of the sending State shall have the right to exercise within the 
receiving State all jurisdiction and control conferred on them by the 
laws of the sending State over all persons subject to the military law 
of that State. 

2. The military authorities of the sending State shall have exclu- 
sive jurisdiction over members of their forces and of civilian com- 
ponents who are subject to the military laws of the sending State 
with respect to offences punishable by the law of that State but not 
by the law of the receiving State, including offences relating to the 
security of the sending State but not to that of the receiving State. 
A security offence against a particular State shall include: 

(a) treason against the State; 

(b) sabotage, espionage, or violation of any law relating to offi- 
cial secrets of that State. 

3. It is the duty of the forces and civilian components of the 
sending State to respect the law of the receiving State, and to abstain 
from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of the present Agree- 
ment and, in particular, from any political activity in the receiving 
State. 

4. The authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction 
over the members of a force and of a civilian component with respect 
to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and 
punishable by the law of that State, except that the military authori- 
ties of the sending State and the authorities of the receiving State 
shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the members of a force and of 
a civilian component subject to the military law of the sending State 
with respect to offences committed within the territory of a receiving 
State and punishable by the laws of both States, provided that in the 
cases of the following offences, the military authorities of the sending 
State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction : 

(a) Offences solely against the property of the sending State, or 
offences against the person, property or dependent of another 
member of the forces or civilian components of the sending 
State ; 



373 

(b) Offences arising out of any act done in the performance of 
official duty, or pursuant to a lawful order issued by the 
competent authorities of the sending State. 

In particular cases, the sending State may waive the primary right 
to exercise jurisdiction by written notice of such waiver delivered 
to the appropriate authorities of the receiving State as soon as 
practicable. 

5. In the case of any other offence in which the military authorities 
of the sending State and the authorities of the receiving State shall 
have concurrent jurisdiction, the receiving State shall have the pri- 
mary right to exercise jurisdiction. The authorities of the receiving 
State shall promptly notify the military authorities of the sending 
State of the arrest of any member of the force or civilian component 
of the sending State, and if the receiving State decides not to exercise 
jurisdiction, it shall notify the military authorities of the sending 
State as soon as practicable. 

6. The authorities of the receiving and sending States will assist 
each other in the arrest of offenders in the territory of the receiving 
State and in handing them over to the authority which is to exercise 
jurisdiction in accordance with the above, as well as in the collection 
of evidence and the carrying out of all necessary investigations, the 
seizure and in proper cases handing over [of] exhibits and all objects 
connected with the offence. 

7. Whenever a member of a force or civilian component is prose- 
cuted under the jurisdiction of a receiving State, he shall be entitled : 

(a) To a prompt and speedy trial; 

(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or 
charges against him ; 

(c) To be confronted with the witnesses against him; 

(d) To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
favour ; 

(e) To defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own 
choice, or failing such choice, appointed to conduct his 
defence ; 

(f) If he considers it necessary, to the service of a competent 
interpreter ; 

(g) To have a representative of his Government present at any 
stage of his detention or trial, except during the preliminary 
examination or grand jury proceeding. 

8. Regularly constituted military units or formations of forces 
shall have the right to police any camps, establishments or other 



374 

premises which they have occupied as the result of an agreement with 
the receiving State, under the following conditions : 

(a) The military police of the units or formations may take all 
appropriate measures to insure the maintenance of order on 
such premises ; 

(b) Employment of such military police outside of its premises 
will be subject to arrangement with the authorities of the 
receiving State and in liaison with those authorities, where 
such employment is necessary to maintain discipline and 
order among the members of such units or formations. 

9. The Contracting Parties will seek such legislation as may be 
necessary to insure the adequate security and protection within their 
respective territories of installations, equipment, property, records 
and official information of other Contracting Parties, and the punish- 
ment of persons who may contravene such laws enacted for that 
purpose. 

10. The provisions of this Article are without prejudice to any 
special arrangements which may be made to meet the requirements of 
a sending State with respect to the exercise of its jurisdiction in time 
of hostilities in the North Atlantic Area over offences committed by 
persons who are subject to its military laws and who are within 
the receiving State. 

ADDENDUM 2 

Article VI: New Paragraph (6), submitted by the United States 
Delegation, to be inserted after existing paragraph 5. 

Where a primary right of jurisdiction has been exercised by the 
authorities of a Contracting Party, a trial of the accused by such 
authorities shall preclude his subsequent trial for the same offence by 
the authorities of another Contracting Party. 

MS-D(51) 6 

Status of Forces Agreement — French Proposal on Distribution of 
the Financial Burden under Article VII, paragraph 4(b) (14 
February 1951) * 

(b) The costs incurred by one of the Contracting Parties in 
satisfying claims pursuant to sub-paragraph (a) shall be 
distributed as follows: 
(i) Where a sending State alone is involved in the claim, 



2 Dated 15 February 1951. 

i Previous reference: MS-D(51) 4(R) (12 February 1951). References 
MS(J)-R(51) 7-8 (22-23 February 1951). 



375 

the claim and sundry charges shall be distributed in the 
proportion of 25% chargeable to the receiving State and 
75% chargeable to the sending State. 

(ii) Where several States are simultaneously involved in the 
same claim, the claim and sundry charges shall be dis- 
tributed among the receiving State and the various send- 
ing States involved, each of those countries bearing the 
same burden. 

(iii) Every claim submitted to the receiving State shall be 
immediately communicated to the sending States con- 
cerned, together with full particulars and a proposed 
distribution on a percentage basis in conformity with 
sub-paragraph (i) and (ii) above. In default of a 
reply within two months, the proposal shall be re- 
garded as accepted. 

(iv) In the event of disagreement between the receiving 
State and certain sending States on the application of 
sub-paragraph (i) and (ii) above, as in cases where 
it cannot be clearly established which State is the 
responsible party, SHAPE shall arbitrate in the matter, 
without right of appeal, 
(v) Every half-year, a statement of the sum paid by the 
receiving State in the course of the half-year period, 
in respect of every case regarding which the proposed 
distribution on a percentage basis has been accepted, 
shall be sent to the sending States concerned, together 
with a request for reimbursement. Such reimbursement 
shall be made within the shortest possible time, the 
amount being calculated in the currency of the send- 
ing State, taking into account the rate of exchange on 
the date on which payment of the sums to be reimbursed 
will have actually taken place. 

MS-D(51) 7 

Status of Forces Agreement — United Kingdom Amendments to 
Articles IX and X (14 February 1951 ) 1 

Article IX 

1. In order that Article IX should only contain clauses relating 
to the stay in a receiving State of foreign forces and civilian 

i The paragraph numbers have been added by the editor. Previous reference : 
D-D (51) 23 (23 January 1951). Aference: MS(F)-R(51) 5 (15 February 
1951). 



376 

components and their dependents, and not to their entry to and 
exit from the receiving State, paragraph 1(b) should be deleted 
and a new paragraph 4 added, which should read as follows: 

Official vehicles shall be exempt from any tax payable in 
respect of the use of vehicles on public roads. There is no 
obligation under this Article to grant exemption from taxes 
payable in respect of the use of the roads by private vehicles. 

Article X 

2. In paragraph 4, delete the words "Provisions, supplies, . . . 
payable on importation," and substitute: 

The authorities of a force may import free of customs duties 
and all other duties and taxes payable on importation, provi- 
sions, supplies and other goods for the exclusive use of that force. 

3. Delete the words "A specimen of this certificate is given in 
Appendix B." 

4. Renumber existing paragraph 4 as 4(a), and add new sub- 
paragraphs as follows: 

(b) Members of a force or of a civilian component may at 
the time of first arrival to take up duty in the receiving 
State import free of duty their personal effects and 
furniture then in use. Any new furniture may be admitted 
temporarily free of duty for the term of duty of the persons 
concerned. They may, on the termination of their duty 
in the receiving State, or before that date, export free 
of duty their personal effects and furniture then in use. 

(c) Members of a force or of a civilian component may import 
temporarily free of duty their private motor vehicles 
for the personal use of themselves and their dependents. 

MS-D(51) 8 

Status of Forces Agreement — Belgian Note on Article VI of the 
Draft (Traffic Accidents) (16 February 1951 J 1 

Road Accidents 

1. In the terms of paragraph 4 of Article VI, the members of 
foreign forces are subject to the jurisdiction of the authorities 
of the receiving State with respect to offenses committed within 



i Previous reference: MS-D(51) 5, Article VI (12 February 1951). Reference 
MS(J)-R(51) 4 (16 February 1951). 



377 

the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of 
that State, except that the military authorities of the sending 
State and the authorities of the receiving State shall have concur- 
rent jurisdiction over the members of the foreign force with respect 
to offenses committed within the territory of a receiving State and 
punishable by the laws of both States, provided that the military 
authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to 
exercise jurisdiction in the case of offenses arising out of any act 
done in the performance of official duty. 

2. The attention of the Belgian Delegation has been drawn to 
the effects of this provision in the case of road accidents. 

3. The Belgian Delegation considers that it may be of use to 
the Working Group to set out the principal points that have 
occurred to them on this subject. 

4. Road accidents can be classified into two major categories: 
those which have caused only material damage, and those in 
which persons have been injured. 

5. In the first case, as the accident has only caused material 
damage, the only legal provision which will have been violated 
in most legislative systems is a provision of the road regulations. 
Most penal codes do not render punishable involuntary damage 
to the personal estate of another party. 

6. In the majority of countries, therefore, an accident of this 
nature is regarded as a purely domestic offense, punishable only 
under the law of the receiving State. 

7. Thus, the judicial authorities of the receiving State shall 
exercise the exclusive right of jurisdiction. 

8. The only exception to this rule is when, in the case of the 
occupation of foreign territory, the occupying authority, by virtue 
of the legislative power to which it is entitled under international 
law, issues a number of domestic decrees, by means of an ordinance 
applying to its armed forces. But here we have a situation in which 
there should be no question of the occupation of one country by 
another. 

9. The second case, in which the accident has caused injury or 
death, is different. In addition to the violation of the road re£ula- 
tions, there will be the offense of unintentional assault and battery 
which all legislations recognize. 

10. With regard to this last offense, the authorities of the send- 
ing State may have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. The 
decision as to which country should take cognizance of the ac- 
cident is thus made dependent on the character of the damages 
which the accident has caused, — the material damage on the one 



378 

hand, the injury on the other. This means that account is taken 
of a fortuitous circumstance which does not appear to be sufficiently 
determinative to justify such an effect. 

11. Those are not all the difficulties which arise. 

12. If we only take the case of the accident involving personal 
injury or death, we see that we nearly always have a conjunction 
of offenses, since one and the same fact is, on one hand, a violation 
of a set of road regulations and will in the majority of cases only 
be punishable by the law of the receiving State, and, on the other 
hand, an offense against common law — unintentional assault and 
battery — which is punishable by both legislations. 

13. The authorities of the receiving State will have to take 
cognizance of the first offense, and the authorities of the sending 
State will have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction with 
respect to the second. 

14. It is difficult to imagine, in a case of such close connection 
as the ideal conjunction of offenses, how proceedings can be in- 
stituted before two courts. 

15. It must not be forgotten that this [connection] is closer 
than in any other field, for the offense which is the essential factor 
in the assault and battery is usually the violation of the road 
regulations. This last offense is at the root of the first. It is 
impossible to dissociate them. 

16. There is another difficulty. In the majority of road accidents 
it might be said that two persons may be charged at first, and 
the one who is in fact the victim will frequently only appear to 
be so after a very detailed enquiry and even, in many cases, only 
after judgment has been given. 

17. The victim himself, — for an individual who has suffered 
misfortune is often called a victim, — will perhaps be guilty for 
the same reason as the individual who has caused the accident. 
Cases of shared responsibility often arise. 

18. In the case of road accidents, we do not have an active 
party and a passive party as in cases of theft, where it is not 
very difficult to distinguish between the robber and the robbed. 
Both parties are active, and it is often difficult to decide which 
of the two is responsible for the offense. It may even be that both 
are guilty. 

19. In the case of one vehicle grazing the side of another when 
overtaking, is the guilty party the driver who was overtaken and 
did not keep close enough to the right, or the overtaking driver 
who did not go far enough out to the left (vice- versa in the United 
Kingdom) ? 



379 

20. How is it possible to bring this problem, which concerns 
an indivisible whole, before two courts for judgment? 

21. Such a procedure appears neither very reasonable nor very 
practical. In addition to these considerations, it must be borne 
in mind that it will very often be difficult to decide in these cir- 
cumstances whether the accident did or did not arise out of the 
performance of official duty by members of an armed force, and 
that there can be no question of an extrajudicial authority giving 
a judge's verdict. 

22. It is finally in the interests of the victim of the offense, as 
also of the receiving State which has to meet the claim for com- 
pensation, that in every case in which a third party is injured the 
courts of the receiving State should carry out the enquiry and 
collect the evidence required to enable judgment to be given with 
respect to the [civil] 2 interests involved. 

23. In conclusion, the Belgian Delegation considers that the 
provisions of paragraph 4(b) of Article VI should not apply in 
the case of road accidents. 

MS-D(51) 9 

Status of Forces Agreement — Revised Draft of Articles VIII, X, 
XI, XII and XIII (16 February 1951) 1 

Article VIII 

1. Members of a force or of a civilian component and their de- 
pendents may purchase locally goods necessary for their own 
consumption and such services as they need under the same con- 
ditions as the nationals of the receiving State. 

2. Goods purchased locally which are required for the sub- 
sistence of a force or a civilian component will normally be pur- 
chased through the competent departments which purchase such 
goods for armed services of the receiving State. In order to avoid 
such purchases having any adverse effect on the economy of the 
receiving State, the competent authorities of this State will in- 
dicate, when necessary, any articles the purchase of which should be 
restricted or forbidden. 

3. After agreement between the authorised representatives of 



2 Original text : "civilian." 

i Previous reference: D-D(51) 23, Articles VIII, X-XIII (23 January 1951) 
Reference: MS(F)-R(51) 6 (16 February 1951). 



380 

the sending and receiving States, the competent authorities of 
the receiving State will assume sole responsibility for making 
suitable arrangements to make available to a force or a civilian 
component the buildings and grounds, as well as the facilities and 
services connected therewith. These agreements and arrangements 
will be, as far as possible, in accordance with the regulations govern- 
ing the accommodation and billeting of similar personnel of the 
receiving State. In the absence of a specific contract the laws of 
the receiving State shall determine the rights and obligations 
arising out of the occupation or use of the buildings, grounds or 
facilities. 

4. Local civilian labour requirements of a force or a civilian 
component will be satisfied in the same way as those of the com- 
parable authorities of the receiving State and with the assistance 
of those authorities through the employment exchanges. The con- 
ditions of employment and work, in particular wages, supplementary 
payments and conditions for the protection of workers shall be those 
laid down by the legislation of the receiving State. Such civilian 
workers employed by a force or civilian component shall not be 
regarded for any purpose as being members of that force. 

5. When a force or civilian component has at the place where 
it is stationed inadequate medical or dental facilities, its members 
and their dependents may receive medical and dental care, including 
hospitalisation, under the same conditions as comparable personnel 
of the receiving State. 

6. The receiving State will give the most favourable considera- 
tion to requests for the grant to members of a force or a civilian 
component of travelling facilities and concessions with regard to 
fares. These facilities and concessions will be the subject of special 
arrangements to be made between the Governments concerned. 

7. Subject to any general or particular financial arrangements 
between the Parties, payment in local currency for goods, accom- 
modation and services furnished under paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 
and, if necessary, 6, will be made promptly by the authorities of 
the force or a civilian component. 

8. A force or its civilian component or members thereof shall 
not by reason of the Article enjoy any exemption from taxes or 
duties relating to purchases and services chargeable under the fiscal 
regulations of the receiving State. 

Article X 

1. Save as provided expressly to the contrary in this Agreement, 
members of a force and civilian component are subject to the laws 



381 

and regulations administered by the customs authorities of the 
receiving State. In particular the customs authorities of the 
receiving State shall have the right, under the general conditions 
laid down by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, to 
search members of a force or civilian component and their depend- 
ents and to examine their luggage and vehicles, and seize articles 
pursuant to such laws and regulations. 

2. The temporary importation and the re-exportation of service 
vehicles shall be authorised free of duty on presentation of a 
triptyque in the form shown in Appendix A. These vehicles shall 
be exempt from any tax payable in respect of the use of vehicles 
on the roads. 

3. Official documents under official seal will not be subject to 
customs inspection. Couriers carrying these documents, whatever 
their status, must be in possession of an individual movement 
order, issued in accordance with Article II. This movement order 
will show the number of despatches carried and certify that they 
contain only official documents. 

4. The authorities of a force may import free of duty the 
equipment and reasonable quantities of provisons, supplies and 
other goods for the exclusive use of that force. This duty-free 
importation shall be subject to the deposit, at the customs office, 
together with the customs documents, of a certificate signed by an 
official authorised for that purpose. The list of the officials author- 
ised to sign the certificates, as well as specimens of their signatures 
and the stamps used, shall be sent to the customs administration 
of the receiving State. 

5. Members of a force or of a civilian component may at the 
time of first arrival to take up service in the receiving State import 
free of duty their personal effects and furniture then in use. Any 
new furniture may be admitted temporarily free of duty for the 
term of service of the persons concerned. They may on the termina- 
tion of their service in the receiving State, or before that date, export 
free of duty their personal effects and furniture then in use. 

6. Members of a force or civilian component may import tem- 
porarily free of duty their private motor vehicles for the personal 
use of themselves and their dependents. There is no obligation 
under this Article to grant exemption from taxes payable in 
respect of the use of the roads by private vehicles. 

7. Imports made by the authorities of a force other than for 

I the exclusive use of their force, and imports, other than those 
dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article, effected by mem- 



382 

Article, entitled to any exemption from duty or other conditions. 

8. Goods which have been imported duty-free under paragraph 
4 above: 

(a) can be re-exported freely provided that a certificate, issued 
in accordance with paragraph 4 above, is presented to 
the customs office: the customs authorities, however, may 
verify that goods re-exported are as described in the 
certificate and have in fact been imported under the con- 
ditions of paragraph 4. 

(b) cannot normally be disposed of in the receiving State by 
way of either sale or gift : however, in particular cases 
such disposal may be authorised on conditions imposed 
by the customs authorities (for instance on payment of 
duty and tax and compliance with the requirements of the 
controls of trade and exchange). 

9. Goods purchased in the receiving State can only be exported 
therefrom in accordance with the regulations in force in the 
receiving State. 

10. Special arrangements for crossing frontiers shall be granted 
by the customs authorities to regularly constituted units or forma- 
tions, provided that the customs authorities concerned have been 
duly notified in advance. 

11. Special arrangements shall be made by the receiving State 
so that fuel, oil and lubricants for use in service vehicles, aircraft 
and vessels of a force or civilian component may be delivered free 
of all duties and taxes. 

12. In this Article "duty" means customs duties and all other 
duties and taxes payable on importation or exportation, as the case 
may be. 

Article XI 

1. The customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State may 
as a condition of the grant of any customs or fiscal exemption or 
concession provided for in this Agreement, require such conditions 
to be observed as they may deem necessary to prevent abuse. 

2. These authorities may refuse any exemption provided for by 
this Agreement in respect of the importation into the receiving 
State of articles grown, produced or manufactured in that State 
which have been exported therefrom without payment of, or upon 
repayment of, taxes or duties which would have been chargeable but 
for such exportation. Goods removed from a customs warehouse 
shall be deemed to be imported if they were regarded as having 
been exported by reason of being deposited in the warehouse. 



383 

Article XII 

1. In order to prevent offences against customs and fiscal laws 
and regulations of a receiving State, the customs and fiscal author- 
ities of the receiving State and the authorities of the sending State 
will afford each other mutual assistance in the conduct of enquiries 
and the collection of evidence. 

2. The authorities of a force will render all assistance within their 
power to ensure that articles liable to seizure by or on behalf of the 
customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State are handed to 
those authorities. 

3. The authorities of a force will render all assistance within its 
power to ensure the payment of duties, taxes and penalties payable 
by members of the force or civilian component and their dependents. 

4. Service vehicles and articles belonging to a force seized in con- 
nexion with an offence against the customs and fiscal laws and 
regulations will be handed over to the appropriate authorities of 
the force concerned. 

Article XIII 

1. Members of a force and civilian component shall remain 
subject to the foreign exchange regulations of the sending State 
and are also subject to the regulations of the receiving State. 

2. The foreign exchange authorities of the sending and receiv- 
ing States may issue special regulations applicable to a force or 
civilian component. 

[There follows an Appendix, identical with the Appendix in the 
final version of the Agreement. This is the "Appendix A" which 
is referred to in Article X, par. 2, supra. There is no Appendix 
B.] 

MS-D(51) 10 

Status of Forces Agreement — Norwegian Note on the Death Penalty 
under Article VI of the Draft (16 February 1951) 1 

The Death Penalty 

The criminal jurisdiction of a sending State over members of 
its armed forces in the territory of a receiving State, which is 
provided for in Article VI, par. 2 and 4, of the revised draft 
Agreement, raises a question of particular importance to the 
Norwegian Government. It concerns the possibility that the death 
penalty may be applied by foreign military authorities in Norway. 
In the event that Norway becomes a receiving State, nothing in 
the draft Agreement will prevent the visiting force from pronounc- 

i Previous reference: MS-D(51) 5, Article VI (12 February 1951). Reference: 
MS(J)-R(51) 4 (16 February 1951). 



384 

ing and carrying out death sentences against members of the force 
or civilian components who are subject to military law. Instances 
of this kind may very well occur, especially in cases of murder 
and treason. Should such a thing happen in peacetime, it would 
certainly be very repugnant to general feelings in Norway. Capital 
punishment was formally abolished in Norway with respect to 
civil crimes about 50 years ago, and the last execution in peace- 
time took place as long ago as 1875. The death penalty is main- 
tained in the Norwegian military criminal code (the War Articles), 
but it can only be applied in war-time or under certain emergency 
conditions which may be assimilated to wartime. Public opinion 
and the Legislative Assembly are decidedly hostile to capital 
punishment except as an ultimate measure of national self-defence. 
Under these circumstances, the Norwegian Government would ap- 
preciate the introduction in the Agreement of a reservation with 
regard to the execution of death sentences. Other countries, rep- 
resented on the committe, which have abolished capital punishment, 
may possibly be inclined to take the same view. It may be recalled 
that a similar question was raised in the United Kingdom in the 
autumn of 1940 when the Allied Forces Bill was passed. On that 
occasion the difficulty was solved, at least so far as regards Norway, 
by an informal exchange of letters according to which all death 
sentences should be reported to the appropriate British Govern- 
ment Department for the Service concerned. If the British author- 
ities felt bound to recommend that the sentence should be reduced 
in severity, so as to bring it into harmony with the law or custom 
of the United Kingdom as regards British forces, it was under- 
stood that the Norwegian Government would take the necessary 
steps to commute the sentence. 

A reservation as mentioned above may be inserted in the revised 
draft of Article VI, paragraph 1, by adding the following words: 
"The execution of death sentences shall, however, be subject 
to approval by the receiving State, which can refuse its ap- 
proval if its own legislation does not provide for capital punish- 
ment in similar cases." 

MS-D(51) 11 

Status of Forces Agreement — Revised Text (Articles I- VII, IX, 
XI-XIV) of the Draft (19 February 1951) 1 

Note by the Secretary 
The members of the Working Group on the Status of the Armed 

i Previous references: for Articles I-VII, supra: MS-D(51) 5 (12 February 
1951) ; for Articles IX and XI-XIV, supra: MS-D(51) 9 (10 February 1951). 



385 



Forces of the North Atlantic Treaty countries will find attached the 
amended text of Articles I- VII, IX, and XI-XIV, as well as that 
of Appendix A. As soon as the Subcommittees have finished their 
work, Delegations will receive the texts of those Articles which do 
not appear in the present version; these Articles will be published 
under the same document number. 2 

In order to avoid all confusion, the table below gives the number 
of each Article in the present edition and also the corresponding 
numbers in previous editions. This renumbering has been made neces- 
sary by the addition of a new Article II, which was formerly part 
of Article VI. 





(1) 




(2) 


(3) 


Numbering 


in 


Previous 


Documents in which 


MS- 


D(51) 


11 


numbering 


the numbering listed 
in column (2) is used 


Preamble 






Preamble 


MS-D(51) 5 


I 






I 


MS-D(51) 5 


II 






VI, par. 3 


MS-D(51) 5 


III 






II 


MS-D(51) 5 


IV 






III 


MS-D(51) 5 


V 






IV 


MS-D(51) 5 


VI 






V 


MS-D(51) 5 



2 The two Articles referred to (Articles VIII and X under the new number- 
ing) were finally published as Addenda to MS-D(51) 11 (R), on 22 February 
1951. They have been inserted by the editor in the text of MS-D(51) 11 (R). 



386 





(1) 




(2) 


(3) 


Numbering in 




Previous 


Documents in which 


MS- 


-D(51)ll 




numbering 


the numbering listed 
in column (2) is used 


VII 




VI 




MS-D(51) 5 


VIII 3 




VII 




MS-D(51) 4 (Revise) 


IX 




VIII 




MS-D(51) 9 


X3 




IX 




MS-D(51) 9 


XI 




X 




MS-D(51) 9 


XII 




XI 




MS-D(51) 9 


XIII 




XII 




MS-D(51) 9 


XIV 




XIII 




MS-D(51) 9 



Preamble 

The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 
4th April, 1949, desiring to establish the status of the forces of one 
Party maintained in the territory of another Party ; 



Have agreed as follows : 



Article I 



In this Agreement the expression — 

(a) "force" means any personnel belonging to the land, sea or air 
armed services of one Contracting Party maintained by it in 
the territory of another Contracting Party ; 

(b) "civilian component" means any civilian personnel accompany- 
ing a force who are in the employ of an armed service of a 
Contracting Party, and who are not nationals of, nor ordi- 
narily resident in, the State in which the force is maintained; 

(c) "dependent" means the spouse of a member of a force or of a 
civilian component, or a child of such member depending on 
him or her for support ; 

(d) "sending State" means the Contracting Party maintaining the 
force ; 



3 This Article will be published later. [Footnote in original text; see note 2, 
supra]. 






387 

(e) "receiving State'' means the Contracting Party in the territory 
of which the force is maintained, whether it be stationed there 
or passing in transit ; 

(f) "military authorities of the sending State" means those au- 
thorities of a sending State who are empowered by its law to 
enforce the military law of that State with respect to members 
of its forces or civilian components. 

Article II 

It is the duty of the forces and civilian components of the sending 
State and their dependents to respect the law of the receiving State, 
and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of the 
present Agreement, and in particular, from any political activity in 
the receiving State. It is also the duty of the authorities of the send- 
ing State to take necessary measures to that end. 

Article III 

1. On the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of this Article, and 
subject to procedures established by the receiving State relating to 
entry and departure, the members of a force or civilian component 
shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations and immigration 
inspection on entering or leaving the territory of a receiving State, 
and shall also be exempt from the regulations on the registration and 
control of aliens, but shall not be considered as acquiring any rights 
of permanent residence or domicile in the territories of the receiving 
State. 

2. The following documents only will be required in respect of 
members of a force or civilian component. They must be presented 
on demand : 

(a) personal government identity card, showing name (surname 
first), date of birth, rank and number (if any), service, and 
photograph, and in the case of a member of a civilian com- 
ponent, also the place of birth and the ordinary residence 
and the nationality of the member ; 

(b) individual or collective movement order, in the language of 
the sending State, and in the English and French languages, 
issued by an appropriate agency of the sending State, certi- 
fying to the status of the individual as a member of a force 
or of a civilian component, or to the status of an organised 
unit as a force or civilian component, and to the movement 
ordered, which may be countersigned by an appropriate 
representative of the receiving State. 



388 



Article IV 



The receiving State will accept as valid, without a driving test or 
fee, the driving permit or licence or military driving permit issued 
by the sending State or a sub-division thereof [to] a member of a 
force or of a civilian component ; or will, to the extent that it is bound 
to the sending State by the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention 
on Road Traffic, apply those provisions in recognition of a driving 
permit issued by the sending State or sub- division thereof to a mem- 
ber of its force or civilian component. In lieu of the foregoing, the 
receiving State or sub-division thereof may issue a driving permit or 
licence to any member of a force or civilian component who holds a 
driving permit or licence issued by the sending State or a sub-division 
thereof, provided that no driving test is required. 

Article V 

1. Members of a force will normally wear uniform. Regularly 
constituted units or formations of a force must be in uniform when 
crossing a frontier. 

2. Service vehicles of a force shall carry, in addition to their regis- 
tration number, a distinctive nationality mark. 

Article VI 

1. Members of a force may carry arms, on condition that it is 
authorised by their orders. 

2. In any case, officers of a force are always authorised to retain 
possession of their regulation personal weapons. 

Article VII 

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the military authorities 
of the sending State shall have the right to exercise within the receiv- 
ing State all jurisdiction and control conferred on them by the 
laws of the sending State over all persons subject to the military law 
of that State. Death sentences, however, shall not be carried out in 
the receiving State if the legislation of the receiving State does not 
provide for such punishment in similar cases. 

2. The military authorities of the sending State shall have exclu- 
sive jurisdiction over members of their forces and of civilian com- 
ponents who are subject to the military law of the sending State with 
respect to offences relating to the security of the sending State, but 
not to that of the receiving State, and to all other offences punishable 
by the law of that State but not by the law of the receiving State. 



389 

A security offence against a particular State shall include: 

(a) treason against that State; 

(b) sabotage, espionage, or violation of any law relating to offi- 
cial secrets of that State, or secrets relating to the national 
defence of that State. 

3. The authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction 
over the members of a force and of a civilian component with respect 
to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and 
punishable by the law of that State, except that the military authori- 
ties of the sending State and the authorities of the receiving State 
shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the members of a force and of 
a civilian component subject to the military law of the sending State 
with respect to offences committed within the territory of a receiving 
State and punishable by the law of both States, provided that, in the 
case of the following offences, the military authorities of the sending 
State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction : 

(a) offences solely against the property or the security of the 
sending State, or offences solely against the person, property 
or a dependent of another member of the forces or civilian 
component of the sending State ; 

(b) offences arising out of any act done in the performance of 
official duty or pursuant to a lawful order issued by the com- 
petent authorities of the sending State. 

In particular cases, the sending State may waive the primary right 
to exercise jurisdiction by written notice of such waiver delivered to 
the appropriate authorities of the receiving State as soon as prac- 
ticable. The sending State will give sympathetic consideration to a 
request for waiver in cases which the receiving State considers to be 
of particular importance. 

4. In the case of any other offence in which the military authorities 
of the sending State and the authorities of the receiving State shall 
have concurrent jurisdiction, the receiving State shall have the 
primary right to exercise jurisdiction. The authorities of the receiv- 
ing State shall promptly notify the military authorities of the send- 
ing State of the arrest of any member of the force or civilian com- 
ponent of the sending State, and if the receiving State decides not to 
exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the military authorities of the 
sending State as soon as practicable. 

5. Where an accused has been tried by the authorities of one Con- 
tracting Party and has been acquitted, or has been convicted and is 
serving or has served his sentence, he may not be tried again for the 
same offence within the territory of that Contracting Party by the 
authorities of another Contracting Party. 



390 

6. The authorities of the receiving and sending States will assist 
each other in the arrest of offenders in the territory of the receiving 
State and in handing them over to the authority which is to exercise 
jurisdiction in accordance with the above, as well as in the collection 
of evidence and the carrying out of all necessary investigations, the 
seizure and, in proper cases, handing over [of] exhibits and all ob- 
jects connected with the offence. The authorities of the Contracting 
Parties shall notify one another of the results of all investigations 
and trials in cases in which there is concurrent jurisdiction. 

7. Whenever a member of a force or civilian component is prose- 
cuted under the jurisdiction of a receiving State, he shall be entitled : 

(a) to a prompt and speedy trial; 

(b) to be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or 
charges made against him ; 

(c) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; 

(d) to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
favour ; 

(e) to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own 
choice or, failing such choice, appointed to conduct his 
defence ; 

(f) if he considers it necessary, to the service of a competent 
interpreter, and, when the rules of court permit, to the 
presence of a representative of his Government. 

8. Regularly constituted military units or formations of forces 
shall have the right to police any camps, establishments or other 
premises which they have occupied as the result of an agreement with 
the receiving State, under the following conditions : 

(a) The military police of the units or formations may take all 
appropriate measures to insure the maintenance of order on 
such premises ; 

(b) Employment of such military police outside of its premises 
will be subject to arrangement with the authorities of the 
receiving State and in liaison with those authorities, where 
such employment is necessary to maintain discipline and 
order among the members of such units or formations. 

9. Each Contracting Party will seek such legislation as it deems 
necessary to ensure the adequate security and protection within their 
respective territories of installations, equipment, property, records 
and official information of other Contracting Parties, and the punish- 
ment of persons who may contravene such laws enacted for that 
purpose. 



391 



Article VIII 



[A revised draft of Article VIII was not contained in this docu- 
ment. See note 3, supra] . 

Article IX 

1. Members of a force or of a civilian component and their depend- 
ents may purchase locally goods necessary for their own consumption 
and such services as they need under the same conditions as the na- 
tionals of the receiving State. 

2. Goods purchased locally which are required for the subsistence 
of a force or civilian component will normally be purchased through 
the competent departments which purchase such goods for armed 
services of the receiving State. In order to avoid such purchases 
having any adverse effect on the economy of the receiving State, the 
competent authorities of this State will indicate, when necessary, any 
articles the purchase of which should be restricted or forbidden. 

3. After agreement between the authorised representatives of the 
sending and receiving States, the competent authorities of the receiv- 
ing State will assume sole responsibility for making suitable arrange- 
ments to make available to a force or a civilian component the build- 
ings and grounds which it requires, as well as facilities and services 
connected therewith. These agreements and arrangements will be, as 
far as possible, in accordance with the regulations governing the ac- 
commodation and billeting of similar personnel of the receiving 
State. In the absence of a specific contract the laws of the receiving 
State shall determine the rights and obligations arising out of the 
occupation or use of the buildings, grounds or facilities. 

4. Local civilian labour requirements of a force or a civilian com- 
ponent will be satisfied in the same way as those of the comparable 
authorities of the receiving State and with the assistance of those 
authorities through the employment exchanges. The conditions of 
employment and work, in particular wages, supplementary payments 
and conditions for the protection of workers shall be those laid down 
by the legislation of the receiving State. Such civilian workers em- 
ployed by a force or civilian component shall not be regarded for any 
purpose as being members of that force. 

5. When a force or a civilian component has at the place where it 
is stationed inadequate medical or dental facilities, its members and 
their dependents may receive medical and dental care, including 
hospitalisation, under the same conditions as comparable personnel 
of the receiving State. 

6. The receiving State will give the most favourable consideration 
to requests for the grant to members of a force or a civilian com- 



392 

ponent of travelling facilities and concessions with regard to fares. 
These facilities and concessions will be the subject of special arrange- 
ments to be made between the Governments concerned. 

7. Subject to any general or particular financial arrangements 
between the Parties, payment in local currency for goods, accom- 
modation and services furnished under paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and, if 
necessary, 5 and 6, will be made promptly by the authorities of the 
force or a civilian component. 

8. Neither a force nor a civilian component nor the members 
thereof nor their dependents shall by reason of this Article enjoy 
any exemption from taxes or duties relating to purchases and serv- 
ices chargeable under the fiscal regulations of the receiving State. 

Article X 

[A revised draft of Article X was not contained in this document. 
See note 3, supra] . 

Article XI 

1. Save as provided expressly to the contrary in this Agreement, 
members of a force and a civilian component, as well as their depend- 
ents, are subject to the laws and regulations administered by the 
customs authorities of the receiving State. In particular, the customs 
authorities of the receiving State shall have the right, under the 
general conditions laid down by the laws and regulations of the 
receiving State, to search members of a force or civilian component 
and their dependents and to examine their luggage and vehicles and 
seize articles pursuant to such laws and regulations. 

2. The temporary importation and the re-exportation of service 
vehicles shall be authorised free of duty on presentation of a trip- 
tyque in the form shown in Appendix A. These vehicles shall be 
exempt from any tax payable in respect of the use of vehicles on the 
roads. 

3. Official documents under official seal will not be subject to cus- 
toms inspection. Couriers carrying these documents, whatever their 
status, must be in possession of an individual movement order, issued 
in accordance with Article III, par. 2(b). This movement order will 
show the number of despatches carried and certify that they contain 
only official documents. 

4. The authorities of a force may import free of duty the equip- 
ment and reasonable quantities of provisions, supplies and other 
goods for the exclusive use of that force. This duty-free importation 
shall be subject to the deposit, at the customs office, together with the 



Q 



93 



customs documents, of a certificate signed by an official authorised for 
that purpose. The list of the officials authorised to sign the certifi- 
cates, as well as specimens of their signatures and the stamps used, 
shall be sent to the customs administration of the receiving State. 

5. Members of a force or of a civilian component may, at the time 
of first arrival to take up service in the receiving State, import free 
of duty their personal effects and furniture then in use. Any new 
furniture may be admitted temporarily free of duty for the term of 
service of the persons concerned. They may, on the termination of 
their service in the receiving State, or before that date, export free of 
duty their personal effects and furniture then in use. 

6. Members of a force or civilian component may import tem- 
porarily free of duty their private motor vehicles for the personal use 
of themselves and their dependents. There is no obligation under this 
Article to grant exemption from taxes payable in respect of the use 
of the roads by private vehicles. 

7. Imports made by the authorities of a force other than for the 
exclusive use of their force, and imports, other than those dealt with 
in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article, effected by members of a force 
or civilian component, are not, by reason of this Article, entitled to 
any exemption from duty or other conditions. 

8. Goods which have been imported duty-free under paragraph 4, 
above : 

(a) can be re-exported freely provided that a certificate, issued 
in accordance with paragraph 4, above, is presented to the 
customs office : the customs authorities, however, may verify 
that goods re-exported are as described in the certificate and 
have in fact been imported under the conditions of para- 
graph 4 ; 

(b) cannot normally be disposed of in the receiving State by way 
of either sale or gift : however, in particular cases such dis- 
posal may be authorised on conditions imposed by the cus- 
toms authorities (for instance, on payment of duty and tax 
and compliance with the requirements of the controls of 
trade and exchange). 

9. Goods purchased in the receiving State can only be exported 
therefrom in accordance with the regulations in force in the receiving 
State. 

10. Special arrangements for crossing frontiers shall be granted 
by the customs authorities to regularly constituted units or forma- 
tions, provided that the customs authorities concerned have been 
duly notified in advance. 

11. Special arrangements shall be made by the receiving State so 



394 

that fuel, oil and lubricants for use in service vehicles, aircraft and 
vessels of a force or civilian component, may be delivered free of all 
duties and taxes. 

12. In paragraphs 1-10 of this Article, "duty" means customs 
duties and all other duties and taxes payable on importation or ex- 
portation, as the case may be. 

Article XII 

1. The customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State may, as 
a condition of the grant of any customs or fiscal exemption or conces- 
sion provided for in this Agreement, require such conditions to be 
observed as they may deem necessary to prevent abuse. 

2. These authorities may refuse any exemption provided for by 
this Agreement in respect of the importation into the receiving State 
of articles grown, produced or manufactured in that State which 
have been exported therefrom without payment of, or upon repay- 
ment of, taxes and duties which would have been chargeable but for 
such exportation. Goods removed from a customs warehouse shall be 
deemed to be imported if they were regarded as having been exported 
by reason of being deposited in the warehouse. 

Article XIII 

1. In order to prevent offences against customs and fiscal laws and 
regulations of a receiving State, the customs and fiscal authorities of 
the receiving State and the authorities of the sending State will 
afford each other mutual assistance in the conduct of enquiries and 
the collection of evidence. 

2. The authorities of a force will render all assistance within their 
power to insure that articles liable to seizure by or on behalf of the 
customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State are handed to 
those authorities. 

3. The authorities of a force will render all assistance within its 
power to insure the payment of duties, taxes and penalties pa} 7 able by 
members of the force or civilian component and their dependents. 

4. Service vehicles and articles belonging to a force seized in con- 
nection with an offence against the customs and fiscal laws and regu- 
lations will be handed over to the appropriate authorities of the force 
concerned. 

Article XIV 

1. A force, a civilian component and the members thereof as well 
as their dependents shall remain subject to the foreign exchange 



395 

regulations of the sending State and are also subject to the regula- 
tions of the receiving State. 

2. The foreign exchange authorities of the sending and the receiv- 
ing States may issue special regulations applicable to a force or 
a civilian component, or the members thereof as well as their 
dependents. 

[There follows an "Appendix A" which is identical with the 

Appendix contained in the final text of the Agreement. There is 

no Appendix B]. 

MS-D(51) 11 (R) 

Status of Forces Agreement — Revised Text (Articles I-V, IX, XI- 
XIX) of the Draft (20 February 1951) 1 

Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Regarding the Status of Their Forces 

The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington 
on 4th April, 1949, 

Desiring to define the status of the forces of one Party serving 
in the territory of another Party, 



Have agreed as follows: 



Article I 



In this Agreement the expression — 

(a) "force" means the personnel belonging to the land, sea or 
air armed services of one Contracting Party when in the 
territory of another Contracting Party in connexion with 
the operation of the North Atlantic Treaty; 

(b) "civilian component" means the civilian personnel accom- 
panying a force who are in the employ of an armed service 
of a Contracting Party, and who are not nationals of, or 
ordinarily resident in, the State in which the force is located; 

(c) "dependent" means the spouse of a member of a force or 
of a civilian component, or a child of such member depend- 
ing on him or her for support; 

(d) "sending State" means the Contracting Party maintaining 
the force; 



i Previous reference: MS-D(51) 11 (19 February 1951). The text of Articles 
VI, VII, VIII and X was not contained in the original version of this document, 
but were distributed as Addenda to it on 22 February 1951. The text of all four 
Articles has been inserted in the text of MS-D(51) 11 (R) by the editor. 



39G 

(e) "receiving State" means the Contracting Party in the territory 
of which the force is located, whether it be stationed there 
or passing in transit; 

(f) "military authorities of the sending State" means those 
authorities of a sending State who are empowered by its 
law to enforce the military law of that State with respect 
to members of its forces or civilian components. 

Article II 

It is the duty of a force and its civilian component and the 
members thereof as well as their dependents to respect the law 
of the receiving State, and to abstain from any activity incon- 
sistent with the spirit of the present Agreement, and, in particular, 
from any political activity in the receiving State. It is also the 
duty of the sending State to take necessary measures to that end. 

Article III 

1. On the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of this Article 
and subject to compliance with the formalities established by the 
receiving State relating to entry and departure of a force or civilian 
component or the members thereof, such members shall be exempt 
from passport and visa regulations and immigration inspection 
on entering or leaving the territory of a receiving State. They 
shall also be exempt from the regulations on the registration and 
control of aliens, but shall not be considered as acquiring any 
right to permanent residence or domicile in the territories of the 
receiving State. 

2. The following documents only will be required in respect of 
members of a force or civilian component. They must be presented 
on demand: 

(a) personal identity card issued by the sending State, showing 
names, date of birth, rank and number (if any), service, 
and photograph, and, in the case of a member of a civilian 
component, also the place of birth and the ordinary resid- 
ence and the nationality of the member; 

(b) individual or collective movement order, in the language 
of the sending State and in the English and French 
languages, issued by an appropriate agency of the send- 
ing State and certifying to the status of the individual or 
group as a member or members of a force or of a civilian 
component and to the movement ordered. The receiving 
State may require a movement order to be countersigned 
by its appropriate representative. 



397 



Article IV 



The receiving State shall either 

(a) accept as valid, without a driving test or fee, the driving 
permit or licence or military driving permit issued by the 
sending State or a sub-division thereof to a member of a 
force or of a civilian component; or 

(b) issue its own driving permit or licence to any member of 
a force or civilian component who holds a driving permit 
or licence issued by the sending State or a sub-division 
thereof, provided that no driving test shall be required. 

Article V 

1. Members of a force shall normally wear uniform. Regularly 
constituted units or formations of a force shall be in uniform 
when crossing a frontier. 

2. Service vehicles of a force shall carry, in addition to their 
registration number, a distinctive nationality mark. 

Article VI 2 

1. Members of a force may carry arms, on condition that they 
are authorised to do so by their orders. The authorities of the 
sending State shall give consideration to requests from the receiv- 
ing State concerning this matter. 

2. Officers of a force are always authorised to retain possession 
of their regulation personal weapons. 

Article VII 3 

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, 

(a) the military authorities of the sending State shall have 
the right to exercise within the receiving State all juris- 
diction and control conferred on them by the law of the 
sending State over all persons subject to the military law 
of that State; 

(b) the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdic- 
tion over the members of a force or civilian component 
with respect to offences committed within the territory of 
the receiving State and punishable by the law of that 
State. 

2. (a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have 



2 See note 1, supra. 

3 See note 1, supra. 



398 

exclusive jurisdiction over persons subject to the military law 
of that State with respect to offences relating to its security, 
but not to that of the receiving State, and to all other acts 
punishable by the law of the sending State but not by the 
law of the receiving State. 

(b) The authorities of the receiving State shall have exclusive 
jurisdiction over members of a force or civilian component 
with respect to offences relating to the security of that 
State, but not to the security of the sending State, and to 
all other acts punishable by the law of the receiving State 
but not by the law of the sending State. 

(c) A security offence against a particular State shall include 
(i) treason against that State; 

(ii) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to 
officials secrets of that State, or secrets relating to the 
national defence of that State. 

3. In cases where there is concurrent jurisdiction the following 
rules shall apply: 

(a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have 
the primary right to exercise jurisdiction in relation to 

(i) offences solely against the property of that State, or 
offences solely against the person, property or a depend- 
ent of another member of the force or civilian com- 
ponent of that State; 
(ii) offences arising out of any act done in the performance 
of official duty (or pursuant to a lawful order issued by 
the competent authorities of that State). 

(b) In the case of any other offence the authorities of the 
receiving State shall have the primary right to exercise 
jurisdiction. 

(c) If the State having the primary right decides not to 
exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the 
other State as soon as practicable. The authorities of the 
State having the primary right will give sympathetic con- 
sideration to a request from the authorities of the other 
State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other 
State considers such waiver to be of particular importance. 

4. A death sentence shall not be carried out in the receiving State 
by the authorities of the sending State if the legislation of the 
receiving State does not provide for such punishment in a similar 
case. 

5. (a) The authorities of the receiving and sending States shall 

assist each other in the arrest of offenders in the territory of 



399 

the receiving State and in handing them over to the authority 
which is to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the above 
provisions. 

(b) The authorities of the receiving State shall notify promptly 
the military authorities of the sending State of the arrest 
of any member of a force or civilian component. 

(c) The custody of an accused over whom the receiving State 
is to exercise jurisdiction shall, if he is in the hands of the 
sending State, remain with that State until his arraign- 
ment by the receiving State. 

6. (a) The authorities of the receiving and sending States shall 

assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investi- 
gations into offences, and in the collection of evidence, in- 
cluding the seizure and in proper cases the handing over of 
objects connected with an offence, 
(b) The authorities of the Contracting Parties shall notify one 
another of the results of all investigations and trials in 
cases where there is concurrent jurisdiction. 

7. Where an accused has been tried by the authorities of one 
Contracting Party and has been acquitted, or has been convicted 
and is serving or has served his sentence, he may not be tried again 
for the same offence within the territory of that Contracting Party 
by the authorities of another Contracting Party. 

8. Whenever a member of a force or civilian component is prose- 
cuted under the jurisdiction of a receiving State he shall be 
entitled — 

(a) to a prompt and speedy trial; 

(b) to be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or 
charges made against him; 

(c) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; 

(d) to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
favour, if within the jurisdiction of the receiving State; 

(e) to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own 
choice, or, failing such choice, appointed to conduct his 
defence ; 

(f) if he considers it necessary, to have the services of a com- 
petent interpreter; and 

(g) to communicate with a representative of his government 
and, when the rules of the court permit, to have such a 
representative present at his trial. 

9. (a) Eegularly constituted military units or formations of forces 

shall have the right to police any camps, establishments or 
other premises which they have occupied as the result of 



400 

an agreement with the receiving State. The military police 
of the force may take all appropriate measures to ensure the 
maintenance of order and security on such premises. 
(b) Outside these premises, such military police shall be em- 
ployed only subject to arrangements with the authorities of 
the receiving State and in liason with those authorities, 
and in so far as such employment is necessary to maintain 
discipline and order among the members of such units or 
formations. 
10. Each Contracting Party will seek such legislation as it deems 
necessary to ensure the adequate security and protection within 
their respective territories of installations, equipment, property, 
records and official information of other Contracting Parties, and 
the punishment of persons who may contravene such laws enacted 
for that purpose. 

Article VIII 4 

1. Each Contracting Party waives all its claims for damage to 
any property owned by it and used by its Service Ministries (land, 
sea or air) against any other Contracting Party or its servants or 
agents, provided such claims arise out of or in connexion with the 
operation of the North Atlantic Treaty. 

For the purpose of this paragraph the expression "owned by a 
Contracting Party" includes a vessel on bare boat charter to that 
Contracting Party or requisitioned by it on bare boat terms or 
otherwise in its possession (except to the extent that the risk of 
loss or liability is borne by some person other than such Contracting 
Party or its insurer). 

2. In the case of damage to property owned by a Contracting 
Party and not covered by paragraph 1 above, the amount of 
damage will be assessed by an arbitrator nominated by the receiving 
State, after consultation with any of the other Contracting Parties 
involved, and chosen from amongst its own nationals who hold 
or have held high judicial office, and will be distributed in accord- 
ance with paragraph 5(b) below. 

Nevertheless each Contracting Party waives its claim in any such 
case where the damage is less than: — 



Belgium 


B.fr. 70,000 


Luxembourg L.fr. 


70,000 


Canada 




Netherlands Fl. 


5,320 


Denmark 




Norway 




France 


F.fr. 490,000 


Portugal 




Iceland 




United Kingdom 


£500 


Italy 




United States 




4 See note 1, supra. 





401 

In the case of considerable variation in the rates of exchange 
between these currencies the Contracting Parties shall, by exchange 
of letters, agree on the appropriate adjustments of these amounts. 

3. Each Contracting Party waives all claims against any other 
Contracting Party for injury or death suffered by any member 
of its armed services while in the performance of his official duties. 

4. Claims (other than contractual claims) arising out of acts 
done by members of a force or civilian component in the performance 
of their official duties, not incident to combat, and causing damage 
to or loss or destruction of the property of private persons in the 
territory of the receiving State, or the injury or death of individuals 
therein, shall be settled by the receiving State in accordance with 
the following provisions: 

(a) Claims shall be filed, considered and determined or ad- 
judicated in accordance with the laws and regulations of 
the receiving State with respect to claims arising from 
the activities of its own armed forces. 

(b) The receiving State may settle any such claim in its cur- 
rency, and payment of the amount agreed upon shall be 
made by the receiving State. 

(c) Such payment, or the final adjudication of the competent 
tribunals of the receiving State denying payment, shall 
be binding and conclusive upon the Contracting Parties. 

(d) The authorities of the sending State and the receiving 
State will co-operate in the procurement of evidence for 
a fair hearing and disposal of such claims 

(e) The cost incurred in satisfying claims pursuant to the 
preceding sub-paragraphs will, at such intervals as may be 
agreed, be distributed between the Contracting Parties in 
proportions which shall be provisionally, until agreement 
to the contrary, as follows: 






Belgium-Luxembourg 


5.5% 


Netherlands 


5% 


Canada 


7% 


Norway 


3% 


Denmark 


3% 


Portugal 


3% 


F ranee 


15.5% 


United Kingdom 


23% 


Iceland 


0% 


United States 


28% 


Italy 


7% 







(f) A member of a force or civilian component shall not be 

subject to any proceedings for the enforcement of any 

judgment given against him in the receiving State in a 

matter arising from the performance of his official duties. 

The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any claim 



402 

arising out of or in connexion with the navigation or operation of 
a ship or the loading, carriage, or discharge of a cargo. 

5. Claims against members of the force of a sending State arising 
out of tortious acts or omissions not relating to the performance 
of their official duties shall be dealt with in the following manner. 
The authorities of the receiving State shall consider the claim and 
assess compensation to the claimant in a fair and just manner, 
taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the 
conduct of the injured person, and shall prepare a report on the 
matter. The report shall be delivered to the authorities of the send- 
ing State, who shall then decide without delay whether they will 
offer an ex gratia payment is and if so, of what amount. If an 
offer of ex gratia payment is made, and accepted by the claimant 
in full satisfaction of his claim, the authorities of the sending 
State shall make the payment themselves and inform the Govern- 
ment of the receiving State of their decision and of the sum paid. 
Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the jurisdiction of the courts 
of the receiving State to entertain an action against a member 
of the force of a sending State unless and until there has been 
payment in full satisfaction of the claim. 

6. If any question arises whether a tortious act or omission of 
a member of a force or civilian component relates to the performance 
of his duties, the question shall be submitted to the arbitrator 
referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, whose decision on this 
point shall be final and conclusive. 

7. The courts of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction to 
hear and determine contractual claims against members of a force 
or a civilian component. 

Article IX 

1. Members of a force or of a civilian component and their 
dependents may purchase locally goods necessary for their own 
consumption and such services as they need under the same con- 
ditions as the nationals of the receiving State. 

2. Goods purchased locally which are required for the sub- 
sistence of a force or a civilian component will normally be pur- 
chased through the competent departments which purchase such 
goods for armed services of the receiving State. In order to avoid 
such purchases having any adverse effect on the economy of the 
receiving State, the competent authorities of this State will indicate, 
when necessary, any articles the purchase of which should be re- 
stricted or forbidden. 



403 

3. After agreement between the authorised representatives of the 
sending and receiving States, the competent authorities of the 
receiving State will assume sole responsibility for making suitable 
arrangements to make available to a force or a civilian component 
the buildings and grounds which it requires, as well as facilities 
and services connected therewith. These agreements and arrange- 
ments will be, as far as possible, in accordance with the regulations 
governing the accommodation and billeting of similar personnel 
of the receiving State. In the absence of a specific contract the 
laws of the receiving State shall determine the rights and obligations 
arising out of the occupation or use of the buildings, grounds or 
facilities. 

4. Local civilian labour requirements of a force or a civilian com- 
ponent will be satisfied in the same way as the comparable require- 
ments of the receiving State and with the assistance of the authori- 
ties of the receiving State through the employment exchanges. The 
conditions of employment and work, in particular wages, supple- 
mentary payments and conditions for the protection of workers shall 
be those laid down by the legislation of the receiving State. Such 
civilian workers employed by a force or civilian component shall 
not be regarded for any purpose as being members of that force or 
civilian component. 

5. When a force or a civilian component has at the place where it 
is stationed inadequate medical or dental facilities, its members and 
their dependents may receive medical and dental care, including 
hospitalisation, under the same conditions as comparable personnel 
of the receiving State. 

6. The receiving State will give the most favourable consideration 
to requests for the grant to members of a force or a civilian com- 
ponent of travelling facilities and concessions with regard to fares. 
These facilities and concessions will be the subject of special arrange- 
ments to be made between the Governments concerned. 

7. Subject to any general or particular financial arrangements be- 
tween the Contracting Parties, payment in local currency for goods, 
accommodation and services furnished under paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and, 
if necessary.. 5 and 6, will be made promptly by the authorities of the 
force or civilian component. 

8. Neither a force, a civilian component, nor the members thereof, 
nor their dependents, shall by reason of this Article enjoy any 
exemption from taxes or duties relating to purchases and services 
chargeable under the fiscal regulations of the receiving State. 



404 



Article X 5 



1. Where the incidence of any form of taxation in a receiving State 
depends upon residence or domicile, periods during which a member 
of a force or civilian component is in the territory of that State by 
reason solely of his being a member of such force or civilian com- 
ponent shall not be considered as periods of residence or domicile 
therein for the purposes of such taxation. Members of a force or 
civilian components shall be exempt from taxation in the receiving 
State on the salary and emoluments paid to them as such members 
by the sending State or on any property the presence of which in 
the receiving State is due solely to his temporary presence there. 

2. Nothing in this Article shall prevent taxation of a member of a 
force or civilian component with respect to any profitable enter- 
prise, other than his employment as such member, in which he may 
engage in the receiving State. 

Article XI 

1. Save as provided expressly to the contrary in this Agreement 
members of a force and a civilian component as well as their depend- 
ents are subject to the laws and regulations administered by the 
customs authorities of the receiving State. In particular the customs 
authorities of the receiving State shall have the right, under the 
general conditions laid down by the laws and regulations of the 
receiving State, to search members of a force or civilian component 
and their dependents and to examine their luggage and vehicles, and 
seize articles pursuant to such laws and regulations. 

2. The temporary importation and the re-exportation of service 
vehicles shall be authorised free of duty on presentation of a trip- 
tyque in the form shown in the Appendix to this Agreement. These 
vehicles shall be exempt from any tax payable in respect of the use 
of vehicles on the roads. 

3. Official documents under official seal will not be subject to 
customs inspection. Couriers carrying these documents, whatever 
their status, must be in possession of an individual movement order, 
issued in accordance with Article III. This movement order will 
show the number of despatches carried and certify that they contain 
only official documents. 

4. The authorities of a force may import free of duty the equip- 
ment and reasonable quantities of provisions, supplies and other 
goods for the exclusive use of that force and its civilian component. 
This duty-free importation shall be subject to the deposit, at the 



5 See note 1, supra. 



405 

customs office, together with the customs documents, of a certificate 
signed by an official of the sending State authorised for that purpose. 
The list of the officials authorised to sign the certificates as well as 
specimens of their signatures and the stamps used, shall be sent to the 
customs administration of the receiving State. 

5. Members of a force or civilian component may at the time of 
first arrival to take up service in the receiving State import free of 
duty for the time of such service their personal effects and furniture 
then in use. Additional furniture shall be admitted at any time on 
the same conditions. 

6. Members of a force or civilian component may import tempo- 
rarily free of duty their private motor vehicles for the personal use 
of themselves and their dependents. There is no obligation under this 
Article to grant exemption from taxes payable in respect of the use 
of roads by private vehicles. 

7. Imports made by the authorities of a force other than for the 
exclusive use of that force and its civilian component, and imports, 
other than those dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article, 
effected by members of a force or civilian component are not, by 
reason of this Article, entitled to any exemption from duty or other 
conditions. 

8. Goods which have been imported duty-free under paragraphs 
5 or 6 above : 

(a) can be re-exported freely, provided that, in the case of goods 
imported under paragraph 4, a certificate, issued in accord- 
ance with that paragraph, is presented to the customs office : 
the customs authorities, however, may verify that goods re- 
exported are as described in the certificate, if any, and have 
in fact been imported under the conditions of paragraph 4, 
5 or 6, as the case may be ; 

(b) cannot normally be disposed of in the receiving State by way 
of either sale or gift : however, in particular cases such dis- 
posal may be authorised on conditions imposed by the cus- 
toms authorities (for instance on payment of duty and tax 
and compliance with the requirements of the controls of 
trade and exchange). 

9. Goods purchased in the receiving State can only be exported 

I therefrom in accordance with the regulations in force in the receiving 
State. 
10. Special arrangements for crossing frontiers shall be granted by 
the customs authorities to regularly constituted units or formations, 
provided that the customs authorities concerned have been duly noti- 



406 

11. Special arrangements shall be made by the receiving State so 
that fuel, oil and lubricants for use in service vehicles, aircraft and 
vessels of a force or civilian component may be delivered free of all 
duties and taxes. 

12. In paragraphs 1-10 of this Article "duty" means customs 
duties and all other duties and taxes payable on importation or 
exportation, as the case may be. 

Article XII 

1. The customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State may, as 
a condition of the grant of any customs or fiscal exemption or con- 
cession provided for in this Agreement, require such conditions to be 
observed as they may deem necessary to prevent abuse. 

2. These authorities may refuse any exemption provided for by this 
Agreement in respect of the importation into the receiving State of 
articles grown, produced or manufactured in that State which have 
been exported therefrom without payment of, or upon repayment of, 
taxes or duties which would have been chargeable but for such ex- 
portation. Goods removed from a customs warehouse shall be deemed 
to be imported if they were regarded as having been exported by 
reason of being deposited in the warehouse. 

Article XIII 

1. In order to prevent offences against customs and fiscal laws and 
regulations of a receiving State, the customs and fiscal authorities 
of the receiving State and the authorities of the sending State will 
afford each other mutual assistance in the conduct of enquiries and 
the collection of evidence. 

2. The authorities of a force will render all assistance within their 
power to ensure that articles liable to seizure by or on behalf of the 
customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State are handed to 
those authorities. 

3. The authorities of a force will render all assistance within its 
power to ensure the payment of duties, taxes and penalties payable by 
members of the force or civilian component and their dependents. 

4. Service vehicles and articles belonging to a force or its civilian 
component seized in connexion with an offence against the customs 
and fiscal laws and regulations will be handed over to the appropriate 
authorities of the force concerned. 

Article XIV 

1. A force, a civilian component and the members thereof as well 
as their dependents shall remain subject to the foreign exchange 



407 

regulations of the sending State and are also subject to the regula- 
tions of the receiving State. 

2. The foreign exchange authorities of the sending and the receiv- 
ing States may issue special regulations applicable to a force or 
a civilian component, or the members thereof as well as their 
dependents. 

Article XV 

If any Contracting Party is involved in hostilities in the North 
Atlantic area, each of the Contracting Parties shall have the right, 
by giving 60 days notice to the other Contracting Parties, to suspend 
the application of aiw of the provisions of this Agreement so far as 
it is concerned. If this right is exercised, the Contracting Parties will 
immediately consult with a view to agreeing on suitable provisions to 
replace the provisions suspended. 

Article XVI 

All differences between the Contracting Parties relating to the in- 
terpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled by 
negotiation between them and there shall be no recourse to any out- 
side jurisdiction. Except where express provision is made to the 
contrary in this Agreement, the Contracting Parties will make use 
of the machinery of the North Atlantic Council for the settlement 
of any differences which cannot be settled by direct negotiation. 

Article XVII 

Any Contracting Party may at any time request the revision of any 
Article of this Agreement. The request shall be addressed to the 
Chairman of the North Atlantic Council, who shall refer the request 
to the Council. 

Article XVIII 

1. The present Agreement shall be ratified and the instruments of 
ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government 
of the United States of America, which shall notify each signatory 
State of the date of deposit thereof. 

2. Thirty days after four signatory States have deposited their 
instruments of ratification the present Agreement shall come into 
force between them. ]t shall come into force for each other signatory 
State thirty days after the deposit of its instrument of ratification. 

3. After it has come into force, the present Agreement shall be 
open to accession on behalf of any State which accedes to the North 
Atlantic Treaty. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an 



408 

instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of 
America, which shall notify each signatory and acceding State of 
the date of deposit thereof. In respect of any State on behalf of 
which an instrument of accession is deposited, the present Agreement 
shall come into force thirty days after the date of the deposit of such 
instrument. 

Article XIX 

1. The present Agreement may be denounced by any Contracting 
Party after the expiration of a period of four years from the date on 
which the Agreement comes into force. 

2. The denunciation of the Agreement by any Contracting Party 
shall be effected by a written notification addressed by that Contract- 
ing Party to the Government of the United States of America which 
shall notify all the other Contracting Parties of each such denuncia- 
tion and the date of receipt thereof. 

3. The denunciation shall take effect one year after the receipt of 
the notification by the Government of the United States of America. 
After the expiration of this period of one year, the Agreement shall 
cease to be in force as regards the Contracting Party which denounces 
it, but shall continue in force for the remaining Contracting Parties. 

In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised by their 
respective Governments, have signed the present Agreement. 

Done in London this day of , in the English and 

French languages, both texts being equally authoritative in a single 
original which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government 
of the United States of America. The Government of the United 
States of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to all the 
signatory and acceding States. 

[There follows an Appendix, identical with the Appendix con- 
tained in the final version of the Agreement] . 

MS-D(51) 11 (2R) 

Status of Forces Agreement — New Revised Text (Articles I-XIX) 
of the Draft (24 February 1951) * 

Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Re- 
garding the Status of Their Forces 

The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington 
on 4th April, 1949, 



i Previous reference: MS-D(51) 11 (R) (20 February 1951). 



409 

Desiring to define the status of the forces of one Party serving 
in the territory of another Party, 
Have agreed as follows: 

Article I 

In this Agreement the expression — 

(a) "force" means the personnel belonging to the land, sea or 
air armed services of one Contracting Party when in the 
territory of another Contracting Party in connexion with 
the operation of the North Atlantic Treaty; 

(b) "civilian component" means the civilian personnel accom- 
panying a force of a Contracting Party who are in the 
employ of an armed service of that Contracting Party, and 
who are not nationals of, nor ordinarily resident in, the 
State in which the force is located; 

(c) "dependent" means the spouse of a member of a force or 
of a civilian component, or a child of such member depend- 
ing on him or her for support; 

(d) "sending State" means the Contracting Party maintaining 
the force; 

(e) "receiving State" means the Contracting Party in the 
territory of which the force is located, whether it be 
stationed there or passing in transit; 

(f) "military authorities of the sending State" means those 
authorities of a sending State who are empowered by its 
law to enforce the military law of that State with respect 
to members of its forces or civilian components. 

Article II 

It is the duty of a force and its civilian component and the 
members thereof as well as their dependents to respect the law 
of the receiving State, and to abstain from any activity inconsistent 
with the spirit of the present Agreement, and, in particular, from 
any political activity in the receiving State. It is also the duty 
of the sending State to take necessary measures to that end. 

Article III 

1. On the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of this Article and 
subject to compliance with the formalities established by the 
receiving State relating to entry and departure of a force or the 
members thereof, such members shall be exempt from passport 
and visa regulations and immigration inspection on entering or 



410 

leaving the territory of a receiving State. They shall also be exempt 
from the regulations of the receiving State on the registration and 
control of aliens, but shall not be considered as acquiring any 
right to permanent residence or domicile in the territories of the 
receiving State. 

2. The following documents only will be required in respect of 
members of a force. They must be presented on demand : 

(a) personal identity card issued by the sending State, showing 
names, date of birth, rank and number (if any), service, 
and photograph ; 

(b) individual or collective movement order, in the language of 
the sending State and in the English and French languages, 
issued by an appropriate agency of the sending State and 
certifying to the status of the individual or group as a 
member or members of a force and to the movement ordered. 
The receiving State may require a movement order to be 
countersigned by its appropriate representative. 

3. In order that members of a civilian component or dependents of 
a force or civilian component may enjoy the privileges to which they 
are entitled by this Agreement, they should be so described in their 
passports. 

4. If a member of a force or civilian component leaves the employ 
of the sending State and is not repatriated, the authorities of the 
sending State shall immediately inform the authorities of the receiv- 
ing State, giving such particulars as may be required. 

5. If the receiving State has made an expulsion order against an 
ex-member of a force or civilian component, the authorities of the 
sending State shall be responsible for receiving him within their 
own territory or otherwise disposing of him outside the receiving 
State. 

Article IV 
The receiving State shall either 

(a) accept as valid, without a driving test or fee, the driving 
permit or licence or military driving permit issued by the 
sending State or a sub-division thereof to a member of a 
force or of a civilian component; or 

(b) issue its own driving permit or licence to any member of a 
force or civilian component who holds a driving permit or 
licence issued by the sending State or a sub-division thereof, 
provided that no driving test shall be required. 

Article V 
1. Members of a force shall normally wear uniform. Regularly 



411 

constituted units or formations of a force shall be in uniform when 
crossing a frontier. 

2. Service vehicles of a force or civilian component shall carry, 
in addition to their registration number, a distinctive nationality 
mark. 

Article VI 

1. Members of a force may carry arms, on condition that they are 
authorised to do so by their orders. The authorities of the sending 
State shall give consideration to requests from the receiving State 
concerning this matter. 

2. Officers of a force are always authorised to retain possession of 
their regulation personal weapons. 

Article VII 

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, 

(a) the military authorities of the sending State shall have 
the right to exercise within the receiving State all juris- 
diction and control conferred on them by the law of the 
sending State over all persons subject to the military law 
of that State; 

(b) the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdic- 
tion over the members of a force or civilian component with 
respect to offences committed within the territory of the 
receiving State and punishable by the law of that State. 

2. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the 
right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over persons subject to the 
military law of that State with respect to offences relating to its 
security, but not to that of the receiving State, and to all other 
acts punishable by the law of the sending State, but not by the 
law of the receiving State. 

The authorities of the receiving State shall have the right to 
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over members of a force or civilian 
component with respect to offences relating to the security of that 
State, but not to the security of the sending State, and to all other 
acts punishable by the law of the receiving State, but not by the 
law of the sending State. 

A security offence against a particular State shall include: 

(a) treason against that State; 

(b) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to 
official secrets of that State, or secrets relating to the 
national defence of that State. 



412 

3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent 
the following rules shall apply: 

(a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have the 
primary right to exercise jurisdiction in relation to 

(i) offences solely against the property of that State, or 
offences solely against the person, property or the de- 
pendent of another member of the force or civilian 
component of that State; 

(ii) offences arising out of any act done in the performance 
of official duty (or pursuant to a lawful order issued 
by the competent authorities of that State). 

(b) In the case of any other offence the authorities of the 
receiving State shall have the primary right to exercise 
jurisdiction. 

(c) If the State having the primary right decides not to 
exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the 
other State as soon as possible. The authorities of the 
State having the primary right shall give sympathetic 
consideration to a request from the authorities of the other 
State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other 
State considers such waiver to be of particular importance. 

4. A death sentence shall not be carried out in the receiving State 
by the authorities of the sending State if the legislation of the 
receiving State does not provide for such punishment in a similar 
case. 

5. The authorities of the receiving and sending States shall assist 
each other in the arrest of members of a force or civilian com- 
ponent in the territory of the receiving State and in handing them 
over to the authority which is to exercise jurisdiction in accordance 
with the above provisions. 

The authorities of the receiving State shall notify promptly the 
military authorities of the sending State of the arrest of any 
member of a force or civilian component. 

The custody of an accused over whom the receiving State is to 
exercise jurisdiction shall, if he is in the hands of the sending State, 
remain with that State until he is charged by the receiving State. 

6. The authorities of the receiving and sending States shall assist 
each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into 
offences, and in the collection of evidence, including the seizure 
and, in proper cases, the handing over of objects connected with an 
offence. 

The authorities of the Contracting Parties shall notify one 



413 

another of the results of all investigations and trials in cases where 
there is concurrent jurisdiction. 

7. Where an accused has been tried by the authorities of one 
Contracting Party and has been acquitted, or has been convicted and 
is serving, or has served, his sentence, he may not be tried again 
for the same offence within the same territory by the authorities 
of another Contracting Party. 

8. Whenever a member of a force or civilian component is pros- 
ecuted under the jurisdiction of a receiving State he shall be 
entitled : 

(a) to a prompt and speedy trial; 

(b) to be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge 
or charges made against him; 

(c) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; 

(d) to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in 
his favour, if within the jurisdiction of the receiving State ; 

(e) to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own 
choice, or, failing such choice, appointed to conduct his 
defence ; 

(f) if he considers it necessary, to have the services of a com- 
petent interpreter; and 

(g) to communicate with a representative of his Government 
and, when the rules of the court permit, to have such a 
representative present at his trial. 

9. Regularly constituted military units or formations of forces 
shall have the right to police any camps, establishments or other 
premises which they have occupied as the result of an agreement 
with the receiving State. The military police of the force may take 
all appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance of order and 
security on such premises. 

Outside these premises, such military police shall be employed 
only subject to arrangements with the authorities of the receiving 
State and in liaison with those authorities, and in so far as such 
employment is necessary to maintain discipline and order among 

I the members of such units or formations. 
10. Each Contracting Party will seek such legislation as it deems 
necessary to ensure the adequate security and protection within 
their respective territories of installations, equipment, property, 
records and official information of other Contracting Parties, and 
the punishment of persons who may contravene such laws enacted 



414 



Article VIII 



1. Each Contracting Party waives all its claims against any 
other Contracting Party for damage to any property owned by it 
and used by its Service Ministries (land, sea or air) caused by a 
member or employee of the armed forces of any other Contracting 
Party, provided that such damage was caused by such member or 
employee in the execution of his duties in connexion with the 
operation of the North Atlantic Treaty. Claims for salvage by the 
respective Service Ministries are similarly waived. 

For the purpose of this paragraph the expression "owned by a 
Contracting Party" includes a vessel on bare boat charter to that 
Contracting Party or requisitioned by it on bare boat terms or 
otherwise in its possession (except to the extent that the risk of loss 
or liability is borne by some person other than such Contracting 
Party or its insurer) . 

2. In the case of damage to property owned by a Contracting 
Party and not covered by paragraph 1 above, the amount of 
damage will be assessed by an arbitrator nominated by the receiv- 
ing State, after consultation with any of the other Contracting 
Parties involved, and chosen from amongst its own nationals who 
hold or have held high judicial office, and will be distributed in 
accordance with paragraph 4(e) below. 

Nevertheless each Contracting Party waives its claim in any 
such case where the damage is less than : — 



Belgium 


B.fr. 70,000 


Luxembourg 


L.fr. 


70,000 


Canada 


$ 1,460 


Netherlands 


Fl. 


5,320 


Denmark 


Kr. 9,670 


Norway 


Kr. 


10,000 


France 


F.fr. 490,000 


Portugal 


Es. 


40,250 


Iceland 


Kr. 22,800 


United Kingdom 


£ 


500 


Italy 


Li 850,000 


United States 


$ 


1,400 



In the case of considerable variation in the rates of exchange 
between these currencies the Contracting Parties shall agree on the 
appropriate adjustments of these amounts. 

3. Each Contracting Party waives all claims against any other 
Contracting Party for injury or death suffered by any member 
of its armed services while in the performance of his official 
duties. 

4. Claims (other than contractual claims) arising out of acts 
done by members of a force or civilian component in the performance 
of their official duties and causing damage to or loss or destruction 
of the property of persons or bodies, other than the Contracting 
Parties in the territory of the receiving State, or the injury or 



415 

death of individuals therein, shall be settled by the receiving State 
in accordance with the following provisions: — 

(a) Claims shall be filed, considered and settled or adjudicated 
in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving 
State with respect to claims arising from the activities of 
its own armed forces. 

(b) The receiving State may settle any such claims in its 
currency, and payment of the amount agreed upon or deter- 
mined by adjudication shall be made by the receiving 
State. 

(c) Such payment, or the final adjudication of the competent 
tribunals of the receiving State denying payment, shall 
be binding and conclusive upon the Contracting Parties. 

(d) The authorities of the sending State and the receiving 
State will co-operate in the procurement of evidence for 
a fair hearing and disposal of such claims. 

(e) Every claim paid by the receiving State shall be com- 
municated to the sending States concerned together with 
full particulars and a proposed distribution in conformity 
with sub-paragraphs (f ) (i) and (ii) below. In default 
of a reply within two months, the proposal shall be regarded 
as accepted. 

(f) The cost incurred in satisfying claims pursuant to the 
preceding sub-paragraphs will, at such intervals as may be 
agreed, be distributed between the Contracting Parties, as 
follows : — 

(i) Where one sending State alone is responsible, the 
amount awarded and taxable costs shall be distributed 
in the proportion of 25% chargeable to the receiving 
State and 75% chargeable to the sending State. 

(ii) Where more than one State is responsible for the 
damage, the amount awarded and taxable costs shall be 
distributed equally among them: however, if the receiv- 
ing State is not one of the States responsible its con- 
tribution shall be half that of each of the sending States. 

(iii) Every half-year, a statement of the sums paid by the 
receiving State in the course of the half-yearly period 
in respect of every case regarding which the proposed 
distribution on a percentage basis has been accepted, 
shall be sent to the sending States concerned, together 
with a request for reimbursement. Such reimbursement 
shall be made within the shortest possible time, in the 
currency of the receiving State. 



416 

(iv) In cases where the burden imposed on the Contracting 
Party by this paragraph causes it serious hardship, it 
may request the Council to arrange an adjustment of 
its liability. 

(g) A member of a force or civilian component shall not be sub- 
ject to any proceedings for the enforcement of any judg- 
ment given against him in the receiving State in a matter 
arising from the performance of his official duties. 

The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any claim aris- 
ing out of or in connexion with the navigation or operation of a ship 
or the loading, carriage, or discharge of a cargo. 

5. Claims against members of the force or civilian component of a 
sending State arising out of tortious acts or omissions in the receiving 
State not relating to the performance of their official duties shall be 
dealt with in the following manner. The authorities of the receiving 
State shall consider the claim and assess compensation to the claimant 
in a fair and just manner, taking into account all the circumstances 
of the case, including the conduct of the injured person, and shall 
prepare a report on the matter. The report shall be delivered to the 
authorities of the sending State, who shall then decide without delay 
whether they will offer an ex gratia payment, and if so, of what 
amount. If an offer of ex gratia payment is made, and accepted by 
the claimant in full satisfaction of his claim, the authorities of the 
sending State shall make the payment themselves and inform the 
Government of the receiving State of their decision and of the sum 
paid. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the jurisdiction of the 
courts of the receiving State to entertain an action against a member 
of the force or civilian component unless and until there has been 
payment in full satisfaction of the claim. 

6. If any question arises whether a tortious act or omission of a 
member of a force or civilian component relates to the performance 
of his duties, the question shall be submitted to an arbitrator ap- 
pointed in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, whose deci- 
sion on this point shall be final and conclusive. 

7. The sending State shall not claim immunity from the jurisdic- 
tion of the courts of the receiving State for members of a force or 
civilian component in respect of claims not covered by the provisions 
of the preceding paragraphs. 

Article IX 

1. Members of a force or of a civilian component and their depend- 
ents may purchase locally goods necessary for their own consumption 



417 

and such services as they need under the same conditions as the 
nationals of the receiving State. 

2. Goods which are required from local sources for the subsistence 
of a force or civilian component will normally be purchased through 
the authorities which purchase such goods for the armed services of 
the receiving State. In order to avoid such purchases having any 
adverse effect on the economy of the receiving State, the competent 
authorities of this State will indicate, when necessary, any articles 
the purchase of which should be restricted or forbidden. 

3. After agreement between the authorised representatives of the 
sending and receiving States, the authorities of the receiving State 
will assume sole responsibility for making suitable arrangements to 
make available to a force or a civilian component the buildings and 
grounds which it requires, as well as facilities and services connected 
therewith. These agreements and arrangements will be, as far as pos- 
sible, in accordance with the regulations governing the accommoda- 
tion and billeting of similar personnel of the receiving State. In the 
absence of a specific contract the laws of the receiving State shall 
determine the rights and obligations arising out of the occupation or 
use of the buildings, grounds or facilities. 

4. Local civilian labour requirements of a force or a civilian com- 
ponent will be satisfied in the same way as the comparable require- 
ments of the receiving State and with the assistance of the authorities 
of the receiving State through the employment exchanges. The con- 
ditions of employment and work, in particular wages, supplementary 
payments and conditions for the protection of workers, shall be 
those laid down by the legislation of the receiving State. Such 
civilian workers employed by a force or civilian component shall not 
be regarded for any purpose as being members of that force or 
civilian component. 

5. When a force or a civilian component has at the place where it 
is stationed inadequate medical or dental facilities, members and their 
dependents may receive medical and dental care, including hospitali- 
sation, under the same conditions as comparable personnel of the 
receiving State. 

6. The receiving State will give the most favourable consideration 
to requests for the grant to members of a force or of a civilian com- 
ponent of travelling facilities and concessions with regard to fares. 
These facilities and concessions will be the subject of special arrange- 
ments to be made between the Governments concerned. 

7. Subject to any general or particular financial arrangements be- 
tween the Contracting Parties, payment in local currency for goods, 
accommodation and services furnished under paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and, 



418 

if necessary, 5 and 6, will be made promptly by the authorities of the 
force or civilian component. 

8. Neither a force, nor a civilian component, nor the members 
thereof, nor their dependents, shall by reason of this Article enjoy 
any exemption from taxes or duties relating to purchases and services 
chargeable under the fiscal regulations of the receiving State. 

Article X 

1. Where the incidence of any form of taxation in a receiving State 
depends upon residence or domicile, periods during which a member 
of a force or civilian component is in the territory of that State by 
reason solely of his being a member of such force or civilian com- 
ponent shall not be considered as periods of residence or domicile 
therein for the purposes of such taxation. Members of a force or 
civilian component shall be exempt from taxation in the receiving 
State on the salary and emoluments paid to them as such members by 
the sending State or on any tangible movable property the presence 
of which in the receiving State is due solely to their temporary 
presence there. 

2. Nothing in this Article shall prevent taxation of a member of a 
force or civilian component with respect to any profitable enterprise, 
other than his employment as such member, in which he may engage 
in the receiving State. 

Article XI 

1. Save as provided expressly to the contrary in this Agreement, 
members of a force and of a civilian component as well as their 
dependents are subject to the laws and regulations administered by 
the customs authorities of the receiving State. In particular the 
customs authorities of the receiving State shall have the right, under 
the general conditions laid down by the laws and regulations of the 
receiving State, to search members of a force or civilian component 
and their dependents and to examine their luggage and vehicles, and 
to seize articles pursuant to such laws and regulations. 

2. The temporary importation and the re-exportation of service 
vehicles shall be authorised free of duty on presentation of a trip- 
tyque in the form shown in the Appendix to this Agreement. These 
vehicles shall be exempt from any tax payable in respect of the use 
of vehicles on the roads. 

3. Official documents under official seal will not be subject to cus- 
toms inspection. Couriers, whatever their status, carrying these docu- 
ments, must be in possession of an individual movement order, issued 
in accordance with Article III. This movement order shall show the 



419 

number of despatches carried and certify that they contain only 
official documents. 

4. The authorities of a force may import free of duty the equip- 
ment for that force and reasonable quantities of provisions, supplies 
and other goods for the exclusive use of that force and its civilian 
component. This duty-free importation shall be subject to the de- 
posit, at the customs officer for the place of entry together with the 
customs documents, of a certificate signed by an official of the sending 
State authorised for that purpose. The list of the officials authorised 
to sign the certificates, as well as specimens of their signatures and 
the stamps used, shall be sent to the customs administration of the 
receiving State. 

5. Members of a force or civilian component may at the time of 
first arrival to take up service in the receiving State import free of 
duty for the term of such service their personal effects and furniture. 

6. Members of a force or civilian component may import tempo- 
rarily free of duty their private motor vehicles for the personal use 
of themselves and their dependents. There is no obligation under 
this Article to grant exemption from taxes payable in respect of the 
use of roads by private vehicles. 

7. Imports made by the authorities of a force other than for the 
exclusive use of that force and its civilian component, and imports, 
other than those dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article, 
effected by members of a force or civilian component are not, by 
reason of this Article, entitled to any exemption from duty or other 
conditions. 

8. Goods which have been imported duty-free under paragraphs 4, 
5 or 6 above — 

(a) may be re-exported freely, provided that, in the case of 
goods imported under paragraph 4, a certificate, issued hi 
accordance with that paragraph, is presented to the customs 
office : the customs authorities, however, may verify that 
goods re-exported are as described in the certificate, if any, 
and have in fact been imported under the conditions of para- 
graph 4, 5 or 6 as the case may be ; 

(b) shall not normally be disposed of in the receiving State by 
way of either sale or gift: however, in particular cases such 
disposal may be authorised on conditions imposed by the 
customs authorities (for instance on payment of duty and 
tax and compliance with the requirements of the controls 
of trade and exchange). 

9. Goods purchased in the receiving State shall be exported there- 



420 

from only in accordance with the regulations in force in the receiving 
State. 

10. Special arrangements for crossing frontiers shall be granted 
by the customs authorities to regularly constituted units or forma- 
tions, provided that the customs authorities concerned have been duly 
notified in advance. 

11. Special arrangements shall be made by the receiving State so 
that fuel, oil and lubricants for use in service vehicles, aircraft and 
vessels of a force or civilian component, may be delivered free of 
all duties and taxes. 

12. In paragraphs 1-10 of this Article "duty" means customs duties 
and all other duties and taxes payable on importation or exportation, 
as the case may be. 

Article XII 

1. The customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State may, as a 
condition of the grant of any customs or fiscal exemption or conces- 
sion provided for in this Agreement, require such conditions to be 
observed as they may deem necessary to prevent abuse. 

2. These authorities may refuse any exemption provided for by 
this Agreement in respect of the importation into the receiving State 
of articles grown, produced or manufactured in that State which 
have been exported therefrom without payment of, or upon repay- 
ment of, taxes or duties which would have been chargeable but for 
such exportation. Goods removed from a customs warehouse shall be 
deemed to be imported if they were regarded as having been exported 
by reason of being deposited in the warehouse. 

Article XIII 

1. In order to prevent offences against customs and fiscal laws and 
regulations of a receiving State, the customs and fiscal authorities 
of the receiving State and the authorities of the sending State shall 
afford each other assistance in the conduct of enquiries and the col- 
lection of evidence. 

2. The authorities of a force shall render all assistance within their 
power to ensure that articles liable to seizure by, or on behalf of. the 
customs or fiscal authorities of the receiving State are handed to those 
authorities. 

3. The authorities of a force will render all assistance within their 
power to ensure the payment of duties, taxes and penalties payable 
by members of the force or civilian component or their dependents. 

4. Service vehicles and articles belonging to a force or to its 
civilian component seized in connexion with an offence against the 



421 

customs or fiscal laws or regulations will be handed over to the appro- 
priate authorities of the force concerned. 

Article XIV 

1. A force, a civilian component and the members thereof as well 
as their dependents shall remain subject to the foreign exchange 
regulations of the sending State and shall also be subject to the regu- 
lations of the receiving State. 

2. The foreign exchange authorities of the sending and the receiv- 
ing States may issue special regulations applicable to a force or 
civilian component or the members thereof as well as their 
dependents. 

Article XV 

1. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article, this Agreement shall 
remain in force in the event of hostilities to which the North Atlantic 
Treaty applies, except that Article VIII shall not apply to war 
damage and the provisions of the Agreement, and, in particular of 
Articles III and VII, shall immediately be reviewed by the Contract- 
ing Parties concerned who may agree to such modifications as they 
may consider desirable regarding the application of the Agreement 
between them. 

2. In the event of such hostilities, each of the Contracting Parties 
shall have the right, by giving 60 days notice to the other Contracting 
Parties, to suspend the application of any of the provisions of this 
Agreement so far as it is concerned. If this right is exercised, the 
Contracting Parties will immediately consult with a view to agreeing 
on suitable provisions to replace the provisions suspended. 

Article XVI 

All differences between the Contracting Parties relating to the 
interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled by 
negotiation between them and there shall be no recourse to any out- 
side jurisdiction. Except where express provision is made to the con- 
trary in this Agreement, the Contracting Parties will make use of the 
machinery of the North Atlantic Council for the settlement of differ- 
ences which cannot be settled by direct negotiation. 

Article XVII 

Any Contracting Party may at any time request the revision of any 
Article of this Agreement. The request shall be addressed to the 
Chairman of the North Atlantic Council, who shall refer the request 
to the Council. 



422 



Article XVIII 



1. The present Agreement shall be ratified and the instruments of 
ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America, which shall notify each signa- 
tory State of the date of deposit thereof. 

2. Thirty days after four signatory States have deposited their 
instruments of ratification the present Agreement shall come into 
force between them. It shall come into force for each other signatory 
State thirty days after the deposit of its instrument of ratification. 

3. After it has come into force, the present Agreement shall be 
open to accession on behalf of any State which accedes to the North 
Atlantic Treaty. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an 
instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of 
America, which shall notify each signatory and acceding State of the 
date of deposit thereof. In respect of any State on behalf of which 
an instrument of accession is deposited, the present Agreement shall 
come into force thirty days after the date of the deposit of such 
instrument. 

Article XIX 

1. The present Agreement may be denounced by any Contracting 
Party after the expiration of a period of four years from the date on 
which the Agreement comes into force. 

2. The denunciation of the Agreement by any Contracting Party 
shall be effected by a written notification addressed by that Party to 
the Government of the United States of America which shall notify 
all the other Contracting Parties of each such notification and the 
date of receipt thereof. 

3. The denunciation shall take effect one year after the receipt of 
the notification by the Government of the United States of America. 
After the expiration of this period of one year, the Agreement shall 
cease to be in force as regards the Contracting Party which denounces 
it, but shall continue in force for the remaining Contracting Parties. 

In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised by their 
respective Governments, have signed the present Agreement. 

Done in London this day of , in the English 

and French languages, both texts being equally authoritative, in a 
single original which shall be deposited in the archives of the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America. The Government of the 
United States of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to all 
the signatory and acceding States. 

[There follows an Appendix, identical with the Appendix con- 
tained in the final version of the Agreement]. 



423 

MS-D(51) 12 

Status of Forces Agreement — Conclusions of the Working Party 
on Article IX (Fiscal Questions) of the Draft (19 February 
1951) * 

Note by the Secretary 

Since the discussions of the fiscal experts had not succeeded in 
achieving agreement on direct taxation (income tax, property tax, 
death duties, etc.), a Working Party met on 16 February 1951 in 
order to go into the problem in detail and define the difficulties which 
it raised. 

The conclusions of this Working Party, which was composed of 
the Representatives of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom, are summarized in the Annex 
below. 

ANNEX 

/. General Comments. 

1. The chief concern of the Working Party has been to devise a 
taxation system of such a kind that it would ensure : first, that mem- 
bers of a foreign force or civilian component do not suffer loss on 
account of their service abroad; and secondly, that such members do 
not profit by undue advantages which would give the impression that 
they enjoy fiscal privileges. 

2. The question has arisen whether it is necessary to insert provi- 
sions in the Agreement in favor of members who may already have 
their "fiscal domicile" in the receiving State at the time when they 
enter the service of the armed force or civilian component. 

The majority of Representatives were of the opinion that no special 
measure is necessary with respect to such members for the following 
reasons : 

(a) We cannot concern ourselves with exceptional cases. 

(b) As a general rule, their position will be covered in any case 
by the operation of international conventions intended to 
prevent double taxation. 

(c) Should conventions of this type not exist, it would be for 
the Governments concerned to take the necessary steps on 
the bilateral level, at their discretion. 



i Draft under discussion is that of D-D (51) 23, Article IX (23 January 
1951). Article IX of that draft became Article X in MS-D(51) 11 (19 February 
1951) and in all subsequent drafts. 



424 

A number of Representatives considered that the case of persons 
who are nationals of the receiving State should also be excluded. 



l & 



//. Income 7 ax. 

3. All the Representatives recognized that there could be no ques- 
tion of the receiving State taking advantage of the presence on its 
territory of an armed force or civilian component to increase its 
resources by levying a tax on the sums paid by the sending State to 
the members of the armed force or civilian component in remunera- 
tion for their official duties. 

They noted, however, that if an exemption were granted in the 
receiving State, this might have the result of relieving the persons 
concerned from all taxation, if the legislation of the sending State 
did not permit the taxation of the remunerations, owing to the fact 
that the recipients in view of the duration of their stay abroad could 
no longer be regarded as having a fiscal domicile in the sending State. 

4. To prevent such a situation arising, it has appeared to be neces- 
sary to lay down the principle that the mere fact that the member of 
an armed force or civilian component is serving in the territory of a 
State other than the State in which he possessed his fiscal domicile 
at the time when he entered the service of the force or civilian com- 
ponent does not imply the transfer of this fiscal domicile. 

It would appear that, if such a provision were inserted into the 
Agreement, it should after receiving legislative approval permit the 
taxation of remunerations in the sending State, even when the present 
legislation of that State does not so authorize. 

If this principle were laid down, moreover, it would not imply that 
the sending State is obliged to levy such taxation. 

5. All the Representatives agreed that the receiving State should 
be entitled to levy taxation for its own benefit on those incomes other 
than the remunerations mentioned above, which are derived from 
sources in its own territory. 

6. With regard to incomes derived from sources abroad, the prin- 
ciple laid down under paragraph 4 should logically mean that the 
receiving State should exempt them from taxation. 

Although this view was shared by a number of Representatives, 
several however made reservations on this point. These Representa- 
tives considered that it was legitimate for the receiving State to tax 
the incomes in question insofar as they are brought into its territory, 
and accordingly thought that the aforementioned principle should 
have a restricted application. These Representatives stated that it 
was imperative to give further consideration to this subject. 

7. It would be valuable if all the delegations present at the next 



425 

meeting of the committee of experts were in a position to state defi- 
nitely whether or not their Governments are in favor of granting a 
complete exemption in the receiving State of incomes derived from 
sources outside that State. 

///. Taxes on Property. 

8. The draft Agreement submitted by the United States Delegation 
provides under Article IX, par. 1(c), that the members of a foreign 
force or civilian component shall be exempted from personal property 
taxation in the receiving State. In this connection, it specifies that 
the personal property of a member shall not be deemed to be located 
or present in the receiving State. 

In the present state of the legislations of the North Atlantic 
countries, such taxation is levied either on personal estate, or on real 
estate, or on both categories of property at once. 

It is true that such taxation exists only in certain countries, but 
the Representatives nevertheless recognize the advisability of defining 
the conditions under which the members of a foreign force or civilian 
component may be subject to such taxation. 

The view was expressed by a number of Representatives that it did 
not seem expedient to adopt the full text of the United States pro- 
posal, which would provide total exemption from such taxation in 
the receiving State. It could indeed be considered unsatisfactory if 
the receiving State did not retain the right to impose such taxation 
on the personal estate and real property which might be derived from 
investments within its territory, though an exception might be made 
in favor of certain types of personal estate (for example, personal 
property necessary to the execution of duties or the provision of the 
personal accommodation of the person concerned, credit balances of 
bank accounts insofar as these balances can be regarded as represent- 
ing part of the emoluments received by the person concerned in 
remuneration for his official duties) . 

9. The Representatives generally reserved the right to refer the 
question to their respective authorities, particularly in view of the 
fact that the matter might concern communities other than the State 
(provinces, "departments," municipalities). 

IV. Taxation in Respect of the Occupation of Property. 

10. In a number of countries taxation of this kind is levied usually 
for the benefit of the communities mentioned in paragraph 9. 

The Working Party expressed the wish that the Delegations con- 



426 

cerned should investigate whether and how far exemption from such 
taxation in the receiving State should be provided. 

V. Death Duties. 

11. With regard to death duties, consideration might be given to 
the following solution. 

Assuming that the principle is accepted that the presence of a 
member in the receiving State does not imply the transfer of the fiscal 
domicile, it would be provided that, in the event of his decease, the 
tangible movable property necessary to the said member in the exer- 
cise of his official duties or the provision of his personal accommoda- 
tion shall be considered as not being situated on the territory of the 
receiving State — in the same way as the credit balances of banking 
accounts, insofar as those balances can be regarded as representing 
part of the emoluments received by the person concerned in remunera- 
tion for his official duties. 

12. In the course of the discussion on this point, the Delegations 
will have to decide whether it is possible to accept the exemption 
envisaged above, in particular insofar as it applies to banking account 
balances. On this point, reservations have in any case been made by a 
number of Representatives. 

MS-D(51) 13 

Status of Forces Agreement — Portuguese Proposal for Redraft 
of Article VI on Criminal Jurisdiction (20 February 1951) 1 

Article VI 

1. Members of a force shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of 
the sending State, if indicted : 

(a) for an offence solely against a member of the armed force 
of the sending State or against a dependent of a member of 
such force ; 

(b) for an offence punishable under the law of the sending State, 
but not punishable under that of the receiving State; 

(c) for an offence against the security of the sending State. In- 
cluded in this category are treason, sabotage, espionage, 
and any contravention of the laws relating to the official 
secrets of the sending State. 



i Previous reference: D-D(51) 23, Article VI (23 January 1951) ; MS-D(51) 
2 (6 February 1951) ; MS-D(51) 5, Article VI (12 February 1951). Reference: 
MS(J)-R(51) 6 (22 February 1951). This was renumbered as Article VII in 
MS-D(51) 11 (19 February 1951) and in all subsequent redrafts. 



427 

2. Apart from the cases under paragraph 1 above, members of a 
contingent shall be under the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving 
State, even though the offence is solely punishable by the laws of that 
State. The authorities of the receiving State may waive the exercise 
of its jurisdiction in the event of the following conditions being 
present concurrently : that the offence is not punishable by a heavy 
sentence; that the sending State withdraws the offender from the 
receiving State; that the sending State makes provision for the 
immediate and direct payment to the victim of the offence of the due 
indemnity to be fixed by the jurisdiction of the receiving State. 

3. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the military authorities 
of the sending State shall have the right to exercise within the receiv- 
ing State all the disciplinary jurisdiction and control thereof con- 
ferred on them by the laws of the sending State over all members of 
its forces abroad. 

4. It is the duty of the force of the sending State to respect the 
laws of the receiving State, and to abstain from any activity incon- 
sistent with the spirit of the present Agreement, and in particular, 
from any political activity in the receiving State. 

5. The authorities of the receiving State will assist those of the 
sending State by arresting offenders, handing them over to the au- 
thority which is to exercise jurisdiction, collecting the evidence and 
carrying out all other investigations necessary for the preparation of 
the case, and handing over documents and exhibits connected with 
the prosecution or the defence. 

6. Whenever a member of a foreign force is prosecuted in the 
courts of a receiving State he shall enjoy the same treatment as that 
enjoyed by the nationals of the receiving State, and, specifically, he 
shall be entitled : 

(a) to a speedy and public trial; 

(b) to be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or 
charges made against him ; 

(c) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; 

(d) to secure the evidence of such persons as he may indicate, 
in accordance with the procedural norms of the receiving 
State ; 

(e) to defence by a qualified advocate or counsel of his own 
choice, or failing such choice, appointed by the court to con- 
duct his defence ; 

(f) if he considers it necessary, to the services of a competent 
interpreter. 

K7. It shall be lawful for the sending State to police any camps, 
-■— ~ 



428 

result of an agreement with the receiving State, under the following 
conditions : 

(a) The military police of the units or formations may take all 
appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance of order on 
such premises. 

(b) Employment of such military police outside of its premises 
will be subject to arrangement with the authorities of the 
receiving State and in liaison with those authorities, where 
such employment is necessary to maintain discipline and 
order among the members of such units or formations. 

8. Upon the request of the sending State, the receiving State may 
promulgate such legislation as the authorities of both States agree is 
necessary to ensure the adequate security and protection within its 
territory of installations, equipment, property, records and official 
information of the sending State, and the punishment of persons who 
may contravene such laws enacted for that purpose. 

MS-D(51) 14 

Status of Forces Agreement — Portuguese Proposal for Redraft 
of Article VII on Claims (20 February 1951) * 

Article VII 

1. Each Contracting Party waives all claims for damages to any 
property owned by such Contracting Party and used by its Service 
Ministries (land, sea or air armed services) or by its armed forces, 
caused by a member of the armed services of any other Contracting 
Party while in the performance of his official duties. 

Sub. Should any dispute arise as to whether the damage was 
caused by a member of a force while in the performance of 
his official duties, the matter shall be submitted to the arbitra- 
tion of an umpire appointed by the President of the highest 
court of the receiving State. 

2. No action shall lie against any Contracting Party or any member 
of its armed services for injury or death suffered by any member of 
the armed services of any Contracting Party while in the perform- 
ance of his official duties. 

Sub. The provisions of this paragraph shall not affect any benefits 



i Previous reference: D-D(51) 23, Article VII (23 January 1951) ; MS-D(51) 
4(R) (12 February 1951). Reference: MS(J)-R(51) 6 (22 February 1951). 
Article VII of the original draft was renumbered as Article VIII in MS-D(51) 
11 (19 February 1951) and in all subsequent drafts. 



429 

which the municipal law of the receiving State may provide 
for members of its armed services. 

3. Subject to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs, the 
members of the force of a sending State shall be under the civil 
jurisdiction of the receiving State, unless: 

(a) the case arises from acts done in the performance of official 
duties directly connected with combatant activities; 

(b) the sole injured party is the sending State or a member of 
the latter's force. 

4. Cases arising from the acts of members of a force of a sending 
State done in the performance of their official duties incident to non- 
combatant activities shall be settled in accordance with the legal 
provisions of the receiving State relative to claims arising from acts 
done by its own armed forces. 

(a) Compensation may be settled in the currency of the receiv- 
ing State, which will effect its payment. 

(b) The decision of the court shall be binding on the claimant 
and on the Contracting Parties. 

(c) The receiving State shall provide the defence in connexion 
with such cases. 

(d) The cost incurred by the Contracting Parties in satisfying 
claims pursuant to the preceding sub-paragraph shall be 
taken into full account in the assessment from time to time 
of each nation's contribution to the security of the North 
Atlantic area, with a view to distributing as equitably as 
possible the total burden of defence measures under North 
Atlantic Treaty plans. In the meantime, if the cost incurred 
by any particular receiving State in the settlement of claims 
against the forces of any sending State becomes unduly 
burdensome or disproportionate, such cost may, at the re- 
quest of the receiving State, become the subject of bilateral 
negotiation between the two Parties for a contribution by 
the sending State to the payment of such cost. 

5. In cases involving payment of compensation for acts done by a 
member of a force of a sending State, not relating to the performance 
of his official duties, the receiving State may stipulate the amount 
of compensation payable to the claimant, having regard to all the 
circumstances of the case. 

(a) The authorities of the sending State shall decide, without 
delay and in the light of the report submitted by the receiv- 

Iing State, whether or not they will offer to pay the proposed 
compensation. 



430 

amount stipulated to the receiving State in order that the 
latter may hand it to the claimant. 
(c) The provisions of this paragraph shall affect neither the 
right of the injured party to have recourse to the courts of 
the receiving State nor the latter's jurisdiction. 

D-D (51) 57 

Status of Forces Agreement — Revised Draft (28 February 1951) 1 

Report of the Chairman of the Working Group 

1. I have the honor to submit herewith the draft of an Agreement 
relative to the status of the forces of one Contracting Party to the 
North Atlantic Treaty serving in the territory of another Contracting 
Party. 

2. This draft covers the same range of subjects as the correspond- 
ing Agreement arranged between the Brussels Treaty Powers, which 
was signed in London on 21 December 1949, but has not yet been 
ratified. It goes beyond the provisions of the Brussels Treaty Powers 
Agreement in certain respects, of which the most important are as 
follows: 

(a) It deals with the status of certain classes of civilians accom- 
panying a force. 

(b) It deals in a more positive manner with the situation, in 
regard to the Agreement, which may be expected to arise on 
the outbreak of hostilities to which the North Atlantic 
Treaty applies (see Article XV) . 

3. The draft Agreement represents the greatest common measure 
of assent at which the Working Group could arrive as to the pro- 
posals which should be laid before the Governments of the respective 
Contracting Parties. The members of the Working Group, not being 
in a position to commit their Governments, cannot be regarded as 
having agreed to the several provisions of the draft of merits. During 
the course of our discussions they have kept in touch with their 
Governments, and every endeavor has been made by the Working 
Group to meet requests and to eliminate possible grounds of dissent. 
Nevertheless, the Governments of the Contracting Parties cannot be 
expected to form considered opinions about the provisions of the 
draft Agreement until they have seen the complete text as here pre- 



i Previous reference: MS-D(51) 11(2R) (24 February 1951). References 
D-R(51) 15 (2 March 1951) ; MS-R(51) 10-16 (19-26 April 1951). 



431 

sented. We therefore recommend that copies of the draft be sent as 
soon as possible to the several Governments concerned, with a request 
that their acceptance of it, or their observations thereon, be furnished 
within a limited time. 

4. When replies have been received, we contemplate that it may be 
necessary to call a further meeting of the Working Group, with a 
view to revising the draft and bringing it into acceptable form. 

Draft Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic 
Treaty Regarding the Stains of Their Forces 

The Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 
4th April, 1949, 

Being desirous to define the status of the forces of one Party serv- 
ing in the territory of another Party, 

Have agreed as follows : 

Article I 

In this Agreement the expression — 

(a) "force" means the personnel belonging to the land, sea or air 
armed services of one Contracting Party when in the territory 
of another Contracting Party in connexion with the operation 
of the North Atlantic Treaty ; 

(b) "civilian component" means the civilian personnel accompany- 
ing a force of a Contracting Party who are in the employ of 
an armed service of that Contracting Party, and who are not 
nationals of, nor ordinarily resident in, the State in which 
the force is located ; 

(c) "dependent" means the spouse of a member of a force or of a 
civilian component, or a child of such member depending on 
him or her for support ; 

(d) "sending State" means the Contracting Party to which the 
force belongs ; 

(e) "receiving State" means the Contracting Party in the territory 
of which the force is located, whether it be stationed there or 
passing in transit ; 

(f) "military authorities of the sending State" means those au- 
thorities of a sending State who are empowered by its law to 
enforce the military law of that State with respect to members 
of its forces or civilian components. 



432 

Article II 

It is the duty of a force and its civilian component and the mem- 
bers thereof as well as their dependents to respect the law of the 
receiving State, and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with 
the spirit of the present Agreement, and, in particular, from any 
political activity in the receiving State. It is also the duty of the 
sending State to take necessary measures to that end. 

Article III 

1. On the conditions specified in paragraph 2 of this Article and 
subject to compliance with the formalities established by the receiv- 
ing State relating to entry and departure of a force or the members 
thereof, such members shall be exempt from passport and visa regula- 
tions and immigration inspection on entering or leaving the territory 
of a receiving State. They shall also be exempt from the regulations 
of the receiving State on the registration and control of aliens, but 
shall not be considered as acquiring any right to permanent residence 
or domicile in the territories of the receiving State. 

2. The following documents only will be required in respect of 
members of a force. They must be presented on demand : 

(a) personal identity card issued by the sending State, showing 
names, date of birth, rank and number (if any), service, and 
photograph ; 

(b) individual or collective movement order, in the language of 
the sending State and in the English and French languages, 
issued by an appropriate agency of the sending State and 
certifying to the status of the individual or group as a 
member or members of a force and to the movement ordered. 
The receiving State may require a movement order to be 
countersigned by its appropriate representative. 

3. Members of a civilian component and dependents shall be so 
described in their passports. 

4. If a member of a force or civilian component leaves the employ 
of the sending State and is not repatriated, the authorities of the 
sending State shall immediately inform the authorities of the receiv- 
ing State, giving such particulars as may be required. The authori- 
ties of the sending State shall similarly inform the authorities of the 
receiving State of any such person who has absented himself for more 
than 21 days. 

5. If the receiving State has made an expulsion order against an 
ex-member of a force or of a civilian component, the authorities of 
the sending State shall be responsible for receiving him within their 



433 

own territory or otherwise disposing of him outside the receiving 
State. 

Article IV 

The receiving State shall either 

(a) accept as valid, without a driving test or fee, the driving 
permit or licence or military driving permit issued by the 
sending State or a sub-division thereof to a member of a 
force or of a civilian component; or 

(b) issue its own driving permit or licence to any member of a 
force or civilian component who holds a driving permit or 
licence issued by the sending State or a sub-division thereof, 
provided that no driving test shall be required. 

Article V 

1. Members of a force shall normally wear uniform. Regularly 
constituted units or formations of a force shall be in uniform when 
crossing a frontier. 

2. Service vehicles of a force or civilian component shall carry, in 
addition to their registration number, a distinctive nationality mark. 

Article VI 

Members of a force may carry arms, on condition that they are 
authorised to do so by their orders. The authorities of the sending 
State shall give sympathetic consideration to requests from the 
receiving State concerning this matter. 

Article VII 

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, 

(a) the military authorities of the sending State shall have the 
right to exercise within the receiving State all jurisdiction 
and control conferred on them by the law of the sending 
State over all persons subject to the military law of that 
State ; 

(b) the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction 
over the members of a force or civilian component with 
respect to offences committed within the territory of the 
receiving State and punishable by the law of that State. 

2. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the 
right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over persons subject to the 
military law of that State with respect to offences relating to its 
security, but not to that of the receiving State, and to all other acts 



434 

punishable by the law of the sending State, but not by the law of 
the receiving State. 

The authorities of the receiving State shall have the right to exer- 
cise exclusive jurisdiction over members of a force or civilian com- 
ponent with respect to offences relating to the security of that State, 
but not to the security of the sending State, and to all other acts 
punishable by the law of the receiving State, but not by the law of 
the sending State. 

A security offence against a State shall include 

(a) treason against that State; 

(b) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to 
official secrets of that State, or secrets relating to the na- 
tional defence of that State. 

3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent 
the following rules shall apply : 

(a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have the 
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a 
force or of a civilian component in relation to 

(i) offences solely against the property of that State, or 
offences solely against the person or property of another 
member of the force or civilian component of that State 
or of a dependent; 

(ii) offences arising out of any act done in the performance of 
official duty [or pursuant to a lawful order issued by the 
military authorities of that State]. 2 

(b) In the case of any other offence the authorities of the receiv- 
ing State shall have the primary right to exercise juris- 
diction. 

(c) If the State having the primary right decides not to exercise 
jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other State 
as soon as practicable. The authorities of the State having 
the primary right shall give sympathetic; consideration to a 
request from the authorities of the other State for a waiver 
of its right in cases where that other State considers such 
waiver to be of particular importance. 

4. A death sentence shall not be carried out in the receiving State 
by the authorities of the sending State if the legislation of the 
receiving State does not provide for such punishment in a similar 
case. 

5. (a) The authorities of the receiving and sending States shall 

assist each other in the arrest of members of a force or 



2 Square brackets in original text. 



435 

civilian component in the territory of the receiving State 
and in handing them over to the authority which is to exer- 
cise jurisdiction in accordance with the above provisions. 

(b) The authorities of the receiving State shall notify promptly 
the military authorities of the sending State of the arrest of 
any member of a force or civilian component. 

(c) The custody of an accused over whom the receiving State is 
to exercise jurisdiction shall, if he is in the hands of the 
sending State, remain with that State until he is charged by 
the receiving St